Fallacious Argument ?
Rowan Mayfair
reading this newsgroup I had never heard of the terms 'Ad Hominem',
'Straw Man', 'Slippery Slope', etc. I'm still not too good at picking
them out of debates, so I am asking for your opinions on whether the
following would be an example of a fallacious argument, and if so, which
one ? Also, what is the best method to reply to fallacious arguments
without 'losing ground' yourself ?
In a mailing group I belong to we recently had an ongoing
discussion/debate about same-sex marriages. One woman was put off by
the term bigotry being used in regards to those who oppose them. I
jumped in at this point and said:
"...but if you are against same sex marriages because of a religious
belief, then it is bigotry."
To which she replied:
"First off I'd like to address Tanja about saying that those of us that
don't agree with same sex marriages [are] being bigoted."
I was sure that was some sort of 'fallacious argument' but am not
familiar enough with them to be able to determine which one. So I
didn't address it, but I did reply with what I actually said and
included a definition of 'bigotry' from the dictionary which backed up
my original statement.
--
Tanja
John Colton
>[I said] "...but if you are against same sex marriages because of a religious
>belief, then it is bigotry."
>
>To which she replied:
>
>"First off I'd like to address Tanja about saying that those of us that
>don't agree with same sex marriages [are] being bigoted."
>
>I was sure that was some sort of 'fallacious argument' but am not
>familiar enough with them to be able to determine which one. So I
>didn't address it, but I did reply with what I actually said and
>included a definition of 'bigotry' from the dictionary which backed up
>my original statement.
I would certainly not equate being against same sex marriages due to
religious reasons as "bigotry". I am against murder, theft, and drug
use due to religious reasons-- would that also make me a bigot? I am
also against those things for many other reasons, and of course all
these items are also against the law. The same is true with me and
same sex marriages: I am opposed to them for religious reasons, as
well as some other reasons.
So how could you possibly say that someone objects to something on
religious reasons is a bigot? There may be many other reasons not
stated, because possibly the religious reason outweighs the rest.
Doing some dictionary searches on the word, bigotry, it seems to have
a broad enough definition that you could conceivably call anyone not
believing the same as you a bigot (for failing to be openminded enough
to accept your point of view...). She could probably call you a bigot
for holding on to an irrational (in her point of view) view that SSMs
should be legalized.
However, "bigot" is a very strong/harsh word. I would restrict its use
to places where there is not just a difference of opinion.
As far as the logic goes, it just seems like the individual avoided
the question. I.e., she responded to "people against SSM = bigots",
instead of "religious people against SSM = bigots". Nothing fancy
there.
John
Bill Baldwin
>"...but if you are against same sex marriages because of a religious
>belief, then it is bigotry."
>
>To which she replied:
>
>"First off I'd like to address Tanja about saying that those of us that
>don't agree with same sex marriages [are] being bigoted."
>
>I was sure that was some sort of 'fallacious argument' but am not
>familiar enough with them to be able to determine which one. So I
>didn't address it, but I did reply with what I actually said and
>included a definition of 'bigotry' from the dictionary which backed up
>my original statement.
To me it seems like a legitimate response on your interlocutor's part. Maybe
I'm missing your point, though. You were accusing this woman of bigotry
according to the dictionary definition of the term, right? Are you making a
distinction between accusing her of bigotry (which you did) and accusing her
of "being bigoted" (which she says you did)? Or are you concerned that she's
hearing a different meaning for the word "bigot(ry)" than the dictionary
definition? If so, that's not a logical fallacy. Dictionaries don't always
keep up with connotations.
For example, "bigotry' sends out a couple of vibes that aren't in my
dictionary.
Vibe 1 -- A bigot is someone who has no legitimate basis for intolerance of
another group or behavior. (E.g. you would not call me bigoted for feeling
that murderers, as a class of people, are not desirable. Even though I am
certainly expressing what is for me a religious viewpoint and am intolerant
of other views.) Now of course, you do feel that this woman has no
legitimate basis for her view; hence she's a bigot. She doesn't; hence she's
not.
Vibe 2 -- A bigot accompanies his or her intolerance with hatefulness and
spite. Perhaps the woman wishes to distance herself from that aspect of
bigotry.
Again, though, maybe I haven't grasped where you think the fallacy might be.
Rowan Mayfair
> Rowan Mayfair wanted to know if the following was a fallacious argument:
> >"...but if you are against same sex marriages because of a religious
> >belief, then it is bigotry."
> >
> >To which she replied:
> >
> >"First off I'd like to address Tanja about saying that those of us that
> >don't agree with same sex marriages [are] being bigoted."
> >
> >I was sure that was some sort of 'fallacious argument' but am not
> >familiar enough with them to be able to determine which one. So I
> >didn't address it, but I did reply with what I actually said and
> >included a definition of 'bigotry' from the dictionary which backed up
> >my original statement.
>
> To me it seems like a legitimate response on your interlocutor's part. Maybe
> I'm missing your point, though. You were accusing this woman of bigotry
> according to the dictionary definition of the term, right? Are you making a
> distinction between accusing her of bigotry (which you did) and accusing her
> of "being bigoted" (which she says you did)? Or are you concerned that she's
> hearing a different meaning for the word "bigot(ry)" than the dictionary
> definition? If so, that's not a logical fallacy. Dictionaries don't always
> keep up with connotations.
This is true, but as I understand it, 'bigotry' is an intolerance, especially
when it comes to matters of religion or race. I agree that over the years it's
come to mean the worst sort of intolerance expressed in the worst possible ways
(I even said this in the whole post to this person); I also said that every one
has bigotries (or prejudices if you prefer) and that alone doesn't make anyone a
bad person, that would depend on how one expressed them. Granted I can't think
of a logical reason off hand one would be against same sex marriages that didn't
deal with religion, but that doesn't mean that there aren't any. I guess
someone could be against them just because they aren't legal but has no problem
with a same sex relationship. I was careful not to say that "everyone" who
thinks same sex marriages are wrong are doing so because they are bigots. That
is why I put that part about it being based on a religious belief. I thought
that that was turned around to, what I felt, was a negative exaggeration, and
that is where I thought there might be a fallacious argument. As I said, I
don't understand them completely myself, which is why I asked.
> For example, "bigotry' sends out a couple of vibes that aren't in my
> dictionary.
>
> Vibe 1 -- A bigot is someone who has no legitimate basis for intolerance of
> another group or behavior. (E.g. you would not call me bigoted for feeling
> that murderers, as a class of people, are not desirable. Even though I am
> certainly expressing what is for me a religious viewpoint and am intolerant
> of other views.) Now of course, you do feel that this woman has no
> legitimate basis for her view; hence she's a bigot. She doesn't; hence she's
> not.
To me, a bigot is someone who has an intolerance of another group or behaviour
whose actions harm no one, especially if the rationale is based on Religion or
Race. I wouldn't consider you a bigot for feeling that murderers are not
desirable (regardless of how you come by those feelings) because their actions
do harm others.
> Vibe 2 -- A bigot accompanies his or her intolerance with hatefulness and
> spite. Perhaps the woman wishes to distance herself from that aspect of
> bigotry.
That is entirely true. It has become a rather harsh word, but my main point was
to show that it doesn't have to, necessarily be a bad thing, it just depends on
the way it's expressed. Which no one in that list did in a hateful manner.
> Again, though, maybe I haven't grasped where you think the fallacy might be.
I probably did a lousy job of explaining it :)
--
Tanja
Rowan Mayfair
> I would certainly not equate being against same sex marriages due to
> religious reasons as "bigotry". I am against murder, theft, and drug
> use due to religious reasons-- would that also make me a bigot?
As I explained in my post to Bill, I consider bigotry to be an intolerance for
something that harms no one, like same sex marriages. Murder, theft, drug use
could all have serious consequences for other people. I don't see how anyone else
is harmed by a same sex marriage.
> I am
> also against those things for many other reasons, and of course all
> these items are also against the law. The same is true with me and
> same sex marriages: I am opposed to them for religious reasons, as
> well as some other reasons.
>
> So how could you possibly say that someone objects to something on
> religious reasons is a bigot?
Well, I did check the dictionary and it said that bigotry was an intolerance,
especially in matters of race, religion, and politics. That is why I said it.
> There may be many other reasons not
> stated, because possibly the religious reason outweighs the rest.
>
> Doing some dictionary searches on the word, bigotry, it seems to have
> a broad enough definition that you could conceivably call anyone not
> believing the same as you a bigot (for failing to be openminded enough
> to accept your point of view...). She could probably call you a bigot
> for holding on to an irrational (in her point of view) view that SSMs
> should be legalized.
She could, and she would probably be right. *Everyone* has things they are
bigoted (or prejudiced) about. I wasn't calling anyone a bigot because they
failed to 'be open-minded enough to accept [my] point of view'. I don't expect or
require anyone to think that everything I think or feel or say is right; it would
be a boring place, indeed, if they did. What I do feel is a bigoted point of view
is discriminating against anyone based only on race, religion, gender, or sexual
orientation. If one wants to call me a bigot for having the 'irrational view' (in
their point of view) that everyone should be entitled to the same rights as
everyone else, provided what they do does not harm anyone else, I'll accept the
title gladly.
> However, "bigot" is a very strong/harsh word. I would restrict its use
> to places where there is not just a difference of opinion.
Well, I don't generally use it because people get very defensive about it. I was
not the one who originally made the statement, I was just trying to express that
it doesn't *have* to be a negative thing.
Helge Moulding
>"...but if you are against same sex marriages because of a religious
>belief, then it is bigotry."
No, it isn't, necessarily. There may be many definitions of the word
bigotry, so possibly you have access to one that makes it so, but the
definition that I have of the word "bigot" is someone who is
"obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his own opinions and
prejudices." Bigotry is the state of mind of a bigot, or the
practices of a bigot. To the extent that we all have strong opinions,
anyone could be called a bigot, in which case the word loses its
meaning. I don't suppose you wanted to make a meaningless statement.
What Bill points out is important in this case. The word is a *bad*
word to call someone these days - not that I know of any time that
folks took pride in the appelation - so you've committed a fallacy of
ad hominem argument: attacking the speaker, not the argument that the
speaker was putting forth. Calling someone a bigot has no bearing on
the arguments that person is making.
If the religious beliefs of that person are immaterial to a debate
on public policy, then that should be the point of the argument, not
the fact that the person has religious beliefs that influence the
kinds of public policy that they are likely to favor. If I believed
in a Creation, then that belief has no bearing on a discussion of
policy on antibiotic use in agriculture because the policy should be
based on empirical facts, and not on my beliefs.
If the religious beliefs have a bearing, then the argument should be
directed at their substance, not at their source. For example, if
I believed in "an eye for an eye" and you did not, then one valid
argument vis-a-vis death penalty would be that the state cannot
guarantee equal rewards for good deeds, so the state shouldn't attempt
to guarantee equal punishment for bad deeds. You see how the religious
origin of my belief isn't even addressed.
>"First off I'd like to address Tanja about saying that those of us that
>don't agree with same sex marriages [are] being bigoted."
>I was sure that was some sort of 'fallacious argument'
How? If your correspondent wants to defend themselves against the
slur you've made, that is their right, though again, it has no bearing
on the discussion as far as I can tell.
Incidentally, calling an argument fallacious without showing how it is
fallacious is another form of the ad hominem fallacy; although "ad
hominem" means "against the person," it applies to any attack that
attempts to discredit the argument without looking at its substance.
See http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/welcome.htm for more.
--
Helge "Logic 101, anyone?" Moulding
mailto:hmou...@excite.com Just another guy
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/1401 with a weird name
Lord Jubjub
col...@socrates.berkeley.edu (John Colton) wrote:
> [snip some discussion]
>
> >[I said] "...but if you are against same sex marriages because of a religious
> >belief, then it is bigotry."
> >
> >To which she replied:
> >
> >"First off I'd like to address Tanja about saying that those of us that
> >don't agree with same sex marriages [are] being bigoted."
> >
> >I was sure that was some sort of 'fallacious argument' but am not
> >familiar enough with them to be able to determine which one. So I
> >didn't address it, but I did reply with what I actually said and
> >included a definition of 'bigotry' from the dictionary which backed up
> >my original statement.
>
<snip post about bigotry>
> As far as the logic goes, it just seems like the individual avoided
> the question. I.e., she responded to "people against SSM = bigots",
> instead of "religious people against SSM = bigots". Nothing fancy
> there.
Yes, I would say that her counter argument could be considered 'arguing
past the point'. She is making her legitimate argument while assuming
your point (that since her opinion is based on religion, therefore she's
bigoted) is not the central issue.
But I don't think you can accuse her of 'skirting the issue'. She takes a
larger viewpoint that disagreeing with SSM is not bigoted under any
circumstances.
--
Lord Jubjub, Ruler of the Jabberwocky, Guardian of the Wabe
Rowan Mayfair
> Rowan Mayfair wrote in message <3740663A...@innocent.com>...
> >"...but if you are against same sex marriages because of a religious
> >belief, then it is bigotry."
>
> No, it isn't, necessarily. There may be many definitions of the word
> bigotry, so possibly you have access to one that makes it so, but the
> definition that I have of the word "bigot" is someone who is
> "obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his own opinions and
> prejudices." Bigotry is the state of mind of a bigot, or the
> practices of a bigot. To the extent that we all have strong opinions,
> anyone could be called a bigot, in which case the word loses its
> meaning. I don't suppose you wanted to make a meaningless statement.
I am sure no one *wants* to make meaningless statements. I did base that
comment on the definition of a 'bigot' in my dictionary (American
Heritage). It made the distinction 'especially in matters of religion...',
which is why I said what I did.
> What Bill points out is important in this case. The word is a *bad*
> word to call someone these days - not that I know of any time that
> folks took pride in the appelation - so you've committed a fallacy of
> ad hominem argument: attacking the speaker, not the argument that the
> speaker was putting forth. Calling someone a bigot has no bearing on
> the arguments that person is making.
This may be splitting hairs, but I do see a difference between saying that
one particular view is bigoted, and calling someone a bigot. I don't feel
that I 'attacked' the speaker, I made that comment, not to call anyone a
bigot, but to express that just because it has become a 'bad word' over the
years, it doesn't make one a bad person to have something(s) they are
bigoted about as long as one doesn't express it in a hateful manner (which I
made sure to point out that I didn't think anyone had).
> If the religious beliefs have a bearing, then the argument should be
> directed at their substance, not at their source. For example, if
> I believed in "an eye for an eye" and you did not, then one valid
> argument vis-a-vis death penalty would be that the state cannot
> guarantee equal rewards for good deeds, so the state shouldn't attempt
> to guarantee equal punishment for bad deeds. You see how the religious
> origin of my belief isn't even addressed.
Yes, I do. I did ask how a same sex marriage would be harmful to others,
which I think left religion completely out of it. Maybe it's just that I am
not good at debating, but it seems awfully hard not to address another's
religious beliefs when that is the reason they give for being against
something.
> >"First off I'd like to address Tanja about saying that those of us that
> >don't agree with same sex marriages [are] being bigoted."
> >I was sure that was some sort of 'fallacious argument'
>
> How?
Because that wasn't what I said, it was an exaggeration. I was careful to
include the bit about disagreement being based on a religious belief so as
not to make the sweeping generalization "everyone". If someone is against a
same sex marriage *only* because they are against the law and they are a
law-abiding citizen, but would have no argument against them if they were
legal, then obviously opposition is not based on the religious belief that
same sex marriages are wrong and shouldn't be included in with "everyone".
> If your correspondent wants to defend themselves against the
> slur you've made, that is their right, though again, it has no bearing
> on the discussion as far as I can tell.
I was not the person that originally made the argument, I was giving the
definition, as I understand it, of bigotry. The correspondent didn't defend
themselves against what I *actually* said, but an exaggeration of it; that
was where I thought a fallacious argument may have come in to play. I said
at the beginning of the original post that I may have been way off base
because I don't understand them fully.
> Incidentally, calling an argument fallacious without showing how it is
> fallacious is another form of the ad hominem fallacy;
I didn't call her argument fallacious when I replied to her as I didn't know
if it actually was. I asked *here* if it was because I wanted to learn, not
because I wanted to make an attack on her to discredit her argument. I
didn't even want the argument to be brought here for discussion, but posted
anyway because I wanted to learn about fallacious arguments and how to avoid
them and reply to them without resorting to such tactics myself.
--
Tanja
Chris Garvin
is an attack against the person, vice the argument. For instance, "If you're
against gun control, you're an ignorant redneck."
For a list of all logical fallacies, check out:
http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/welcome.htm
-I think I got the page from this NG.
Cheers!
C.
Rowan Mayfair
> Rowan Mayfair wrote:
> >If I were to say that "if one is against A *because* of B, *then* it is C",
> >and the person I was having this discussion then said, "First off I'd like
> >to address Tanja about saying that those of us that that don't agree
> >with A are C", does that help anyone understand why I thought it might
> >have been a 'fallacious argument' ?
>
> Ok, I think it just clicked. And if so, that was very helpful. We were all
> concentrating on whether you were using the term "bigot" correctly.
I was hesitant to post the original sentences because I was afraid of just that;
people were going to get sidetracked by the word bigotry; which is what
happened. If I had thought about it, I would have just used the above example
when I first posted.
<snip>
> I'll paste the definition here:
>
> The predicate term of the conclusion refers to all members of that category,
> but the same term in the premises refers only to some members of that
> category.
>
> That sound like what you're looking for?
Yes, thank you.
--
Tanja
Rowan Mayfair
> In article <37409A09...@innocent.com>, row...@innocent.com says...
>
> > > I would certainly not equate being against same sex marriages due to
> > > religious reasons as "bigotry". I am against murder, theft, and drug
> > > use due to religious reasons-- would that also make me a bigot?
> >
> > As I explained in my post to Bill, I consider bigotry to be an intolerance for
> > something that harms no one, like same sex marriages. Murder, theft, drug use
> > could all have serious consequences for other people. I don't see how anyone else
> > is harmed by a same sex marriage.
>
> How is anyone harmed by a man having sex with his sister? Or a father
> with his 22 year old daughter?
Well, if I were to be purely objective, as long as both parties are consenting adults,
there is no harm. In fact marrying (and therefore, one can safely assume, having sex)
with close familial members (first cousins, siblings) was not always 'bad'. There is at
least one culture's past (Egypt) where it was not only acceptable, but expected, for
(the ruling class, at least) to marry their sibling. Though I think the parent/child
match has always been viewed as 'wrong' throughout history (I could be wrong, of course,
and I am sure I will be corrected if I am).
> Does opposition to this sort of thing also amount to religious bigotry?
I suppose it could. Personally, I find either idea more than slightly repugnant, and I
am also willing to admit that the most likely (possibly the only) reason that I do is
because I have been 'trained' by society to feel that way. Now that view can very
easily be called bigotry, or prejudiced, and rightly so; but then I don't see anything
wrong with having that viewpoint (bigoted or not) as long as I don't let it influence me
negatively. By that I mean I shouldn't express it in a hateful way (e.g. 'anyone who
engages in incestuous activities should be shot on site'), or use my (bigoted to some)
viewpoints to discriminate against people who are not harming anyone (including
themselves) by their actions.
> > > So how could you possibly say that someone objects to something on
> > > religious reasons is a bigot?
> >
> > Well, I did check the dictionary and it said that bigotry was an intolerance,
> > especially in matters of race, religion, and politics. That is why I said it.
>
> How do we tell the difference between someone who opposes same sex
> marriages out of "bigotry," and someone who does so because of "deeply
> held and agonizingly reasoned religious conviction?"
> Do you think the "bigot" can tell the difference?
I consider bigotry any discrimination of a person, or group of people, based solely on
race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation. Not too long ago you could take out the
words 'same sex' and insert 'interracial' and it's pretty much the exact same debate.
Interracial marriages were not legal, churches didn't condone them, 'society' didn't
'approve', I don't see how that is any different than same sex marriages.
--
Tanja
Rowan Mayfair
> Rowan Mayfair wrote in message <3740A433...@innocent.com>...
> >This may be splitting hairs, but I do see a difference between saying that
> >one particular view is bigoted, and calling someone a bigot.
>
> There is no difference. You aren't attacking the argument, you are simply
> classifying it as "bad". You are suggesting that "if you believe this way
> for no other reason than because you read it in the Bible, then your point
> of view is, ipso facto, wrong."
Ok, I can understand that, and can see where I was wrong. My problem might be
that I don't find bigotry alone a 'bad' thing, it's only when it is used to
discriminate against people that I begin to have a problem with it. Because I
didn't find the people I was discussing this with offensive in their manner of
expression, I was trying to trying to draw some sort of 'line' between that
particular point of view and the person as a whole.
> >I did ask how a same sex marriage would be harmful to others,
> >which I think left religion completely out of it.
<snip very good argument points>
> >Maybe it's just that I am not good at debating, but it seems awfully
> >hard not to address another's religious beliefs when that is the reason
> >they give for being against something.
>
> It may be hard, but it is necessary, as long as you want to insist on
> logical reasoning. You can certainly abandon logical reasoning altogether,
> which most people who indulge in this particular debate do, with gusto.
Well, that was the whole point in asking about fallacious arguments (how to
spot them, respond to them, *and* how to avoid them); I don't want to abandon
logical reasoning, though I am very good at it <grin>.
--
Tanja
Rowan Mayfair
> Rowan Mayfair <row...@innocent.com> writes:
>
> > John Colton wrote:
> >
> > As I explained in my post to Bill, I consider bigotry to be an intolerance for
> > something that harms no one, like same sex marriages.
>
> How many legs does a dog have if you call a tail a leg? Four.
>
> You may "consider" bigotry to be whatever you want. Disagreement on
> any subject is not bigotry. Humpty-Dumpty was wrong.
Well, intolerance and disagreement are not the same thing. Especially when
intolerance leads to discrimination based solely on sexual orientation. How do you
define bigotry ?
> > Murder, theft, drug use could all have serious consequences for
> > other people.
>
> Drug use? How the hell did drug use get in there?
I merely took it from the previous poster's quote.
> How same-sex
> marriages affect other people is far more obvious to me than how drug
> use would.
Ok, then maybe you can explain how two people of the same sex marrying will harm you
? Because it is not obvious to me.
> You're lucky I don't consider you a bigot.
Why am I lucky ? I wouldn't consider it insult if you accused me of being a bigot
because I feel that all people, no matter their sexual orientation, deserve the same
rights as everyone else in this country.
> > I don't see how anyone else
> > is harmed by a same sex marriage.
>
> Your failure to see the problem is not proof that there isn't one.
Then please, tell me what you feel the harm *is*.
--
Tanja
John Colton
>> religious reasons as "bigotry". I am against murder, theft, and drug
>> use due to religious reasons-- would that also make me a bigot?
>
Ah, you didn't state that in the original post, thus leading to some
confusion on my part.
>could all have serious consequences for other people. I don't see how anyone else
>is harmed by a same sex marriage.
I don't have much time, but in short my view is that same sex
marriages, while not harming me in particular, would harm society as a
whole. In effect, it would lessen the importance of "regular"
marriages, which I see as central to the good of society.
>
>> I am
>> also against those things for many other reasons, and of course all
>> these items are also against the law. The same is true with me and
>> same sex marriages: I am opposed to them for religious reasons, as
>> well as some other reasons.
>>
>> So how could you possibly say that someone objects to something on
>> religious reasons is a bigot?
>
>Well, I did check the dictionary and it said that bigotry was an intolerance,
>especially in matters of race, religion, and politics. That is why I said it.
>
>> There may be many other reasons not
>> stated, because possibly the religious reason outweighs the rest.
>>
>> Doing some dictionary searches on the word, bigotry, it seems to have
>> a broad enough definition that you could conceivably call anyone not
>> believing the same as you a bigot (for failing to be openminded enough
>> to accept your point of view...). She could probably call you a bigot
>> for holding on to an irrational (in her point of view) view that SSMs
>> should be legalized.
>
>She could, and she would probably be right. *Everyone* has things they are
>bigoted (or prejudiced) about. I wasn't calling anyone a bigot because they
>failed to 'be open-minded enough to accept [my] point of view'. I don't expect or
>require anyone to think that everything I think or feel or say is right; it would
>be a boring place, indeed, if they did. What I do feel is a bigoted point of view
>is discriminating against anyone based only on race, religion, gender, or sexual
>orientation. If one wants to call me a bigot for having the 'irrational view' (in
>their point of view) that everyone should be entitled to the same rights as
>everyone else, provided what they do does not harm anyone else, I'll accept the
>title gladly.
>
>> However, "bigot" is a very strong/harsh word. I would restrict its use
>> to places where there is not just a difference of opinion.
>
>Well, I don't generally use it because people get very defensive about it. I was
>not the one who originally made the statement, I was just trying to express that
>it doesn't *have* to be a negative thing.
>
In a similar manner, you could say that the words "nigger", "spic",
etc, don't have to be negative things, since they just mean "Negro",
"Hispanic", etc. But I don't think you'd condone their use.
John
Helge Moulding
>Then please, tell me what you feel the harm *is*.
This is an obective sounding argument, of course, and it is used
all the time. After all, it goes, the only reason for having laws
is to prevent or minimize harm, so any activity that doesn't cause
harm should be permitted. Furthermore, the burden of proof that
harm is caused should always be on the state.
Here in Utah we've got the shoe on the other foot, in a manner of
speaking. While Utah law specifically prohibits polygamy, the
practice is (relatively) common in this state. (Heck, they could
move just about anywhere else where it isn't specifically
prohibited - they often do - but some insist on staying.) In any
case, one might well ask, what's the harm in polygamy?
Opponents trot out the usual religious stuff, and then add on all
kinds of stuff that is said to cause economic harm, from the
poverty that the poor kids grow up in, to the polygamous welfare
moms. Recent revelations of horrendous abuse of women and children
in some polygamous households have added that to the fire.
Now, they all are problems, but they aren't consequences of
polygamy, per se. Child abuse and spousal abuse are common in all
walks of life, and there seems to be nothing to indicate that
something about polygamy creates an environment where they are
more likely, or where their victims are more exposed. In fact, I
might argue that allowing polygamy as a lawful relationship would
stop sending its practitioners to the outskirts of society where
there is less oversight, and thus members of polygamous
households would gain more protection from abuse.
Mind you, I think polygamy is a bad idea. It creates shortages of
women (yes, in a sense that is an extremely offensive idea, but it
is useful to think of it this way right now), which increases the
tensions between men. If hierarchical relationships were firmly
established, as they would be in smaller groups, then the tensions
wouldn't cause too many problems. But in our society most men do
not have established hierarchical relationships with each other,
so that these kinds of tensions are likely to lead to violence.
Unless we can come up with a social structure that ameliorates this
tendency, we have an interest in preventing polygamy. Not because
it causes harm, but because our social structures cannot deal with
it. In a sense it causes harm to society.
In the case of same sex marriages, the most significant secular
consequence is that partners in such a marriage control each other's
assets. This would have been a problem in the past where the assets
were in effect property of the family - either the husband's or the
wife's, depending on cultural conventions - and to the offspring.
Same sex marriages wreak havoc with this setup, and it isn't at all
surprising to find prohibitions against it in most cultures that
depended on this economic relationship. However, in the case of our
society this is no longer true, and I find it hard to see a reason
for the state to interfere, at least not on these grounds. There may
be other reasons, of course, that I'm not aware of at the moment, and
which would deserve separate consideration. But you see why I think
that asking for evidence of harm seems to be an overly simplistic way
of looking at the problem.
--
Helge Moulding
Alan Morgan
John Colton <col...@socrates.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>>> I would certainly not equate being against same sex marriages due to
>>> religious reasons as "bigotry". I am against murder, theft, and drug
>>> use due to religious reasons-- would that also make me a bigot?
>>
>>As I explained in my post to Bill, I consider bigotry to be an intolerance for
>>something that harms no one, like same sex marriages. Murder, theft, drug use
>
>Ah, you didn't state that in the original post, thus leading to some
>confusion on my part.
>
>>could all have serious consequences for other people. I don't see how anyone else
>>is harmed by a same sex marriage.
>
>I don't have much time, but in short my view is that same sex
>marriages, while not harming me in particular, would harm society as a
>whole. In effect, it would lessen the importance of "regular"
>marriages, which I see as central to the good of society.
Who is to say what a "regular" marriage is? What if both people are over 80?
What if one is over 80 and the other is 20? What if one of the people has
been previously divorced? What if one is black and one is white? Are any
of these marriages "regular"? The only one that is particularly common is
the third one - and it is far from universally accepted.
Does letting women (or blacks) into university somehow diminish the value
of a university education?
Alan
Mark Brader
> Here in Utah we've got the shoe on the other foot, in a manner of
> speaking. While Utah law specifically prohibits polygamy, the
> practice is (relatively) common in this state. (Heck, they could
> move just about anywhere else where it isn't specifically
> prohibited - they often do - but some insist on staying.)
There are places where polygamy isn't prohibited? Are any of them
in countries where people would otherwise likely want to live?
Is the Utah prohibition on the act of marriage, as I would take
Helge's statement to mean, or on the cohabitation?
> In the case of same sex marriages, the most significant secular
> consequence is that partners in such a marriage control each other's
> assets. This would have been a problem in the past where the assets
> were in effect property of the family - either the husband's or the
> wife's, depending on cultural conventions - and to the offspring.
> Same sex marriages wreak havoc with this setup ...
Er, well, I don't see how.
What I have seen cited as a significant secular consequence is the
impact on things like taxation, health insurance, pensions, and other
systems that customarily extend rights or obligations to spouses.
Immigration too, for that matter.
If the number of married couples in a jurisdiction suddenly increased
by an unexpectedly large amount because same-sex marriages had just
been legalized, the transitional period could be difficult one for
organizations suffering a financial impact. In the long run, things
like revisions to insurance premiums would deal with that, but there
will also be some people who'd object to *any* rise in cost to them
for that reason.
I decline to state here my opinion on the main question.
--
Mark Brader \ "Of course, the most important part of making the
Toronto \ proposal something special for both of you is
msbr...@interlog.com \ addressing it to the right person." --Mara Chibnik
My text in this article is in the public domain.
HpstrDufuz
>> >This may be splitting hairs, but I do see a difference between saying that
>> >one particular view is bigoted, and calling someone a bigot.
>>
>> There is no difference. You aren't attacking the argument, you are simply
>> classifying it as "bad".
Well, I disagree. I think bigotry self evidently wrong, or bad, or evil, or
oteherwise negative, and a more or less falsifiable condition at that. One of
the tests we could put a given stance to is "Is this based on some arbitrary
standard?" or "does this derive from unreasonable prejudice?"
>You are suggesting that "if you believe this way
>> for no other reason than because you read it in the Bible, then your point
>> of view is, ipso facto, wrong."
How about "If you believe that this group of people are decadent, immoral,
sinful, with no evidence than a given old text says not to like them..."?
-In spite of everything, I still believe people are good.
Helge Moulding
>I decline to state here my opinion on the main question.
Quite. I'm thinking that we don't want to start that ball
rolling in this froup. There are plenty of other groups where
this issue is getting discussed.
>There are places where polygamy isn't prohibited? Are any of them
>in countries where people would otherwise likely want to live?
Colorado isn't so bad. I've got friends there.
>Is the Utah prohibition on the act of marriage, as I would take
>Helge's statement to mean, or on the cohabitation?
The law specifically prohibits polygamy, or marriage to
more than one partner. This is conventionally taken to
mean polygyny, but it does, of course, include polyandry,
as well. So far I know of no reason to worry about women
collecting harems of men.
One of the difficulties in enforcing a prohibition against
polygamy is that without enforcing a prohibition against
co-habitation there's little that can realistically be done.
We've got one maverick lawman in one of our counties who is
in fact ready to prosecute anyone cohabiting without the
benefit of a marriage license. I have no idea what will
happen when his cases go to appeal.
>> Same sex marriages wreak havoc with this setup ...
>Er, well, I don't see how.
Same sex partners have no offspring. They enjoy equal control
over their property. They can pass it on out of the family.
The family loses control of the property. Although it causes
no harm, it is a Bad Thing where families are expected to
maintain a proprietary interest.
>What I have seen cited as a significant secular consequence
>is the impact on things like taxation, health insurance,
>pensions, and other systems that customarily extend rights
>or obligations to spouses. Immigration too, for that matter.
As I wrote, there are probably other significant secular
consequences. The point was that "harm" isn't the only
consideration that must be answered when deciding on changes
to societal institutions.
Rowan Mayfair
> >> I would certainly not equate being against same sex marriages due to
> >> religious reasons as "bigotry". I am against murder, theft, and drug
> >> use due to religious reasons-- would that also make me a bigot?
> >
> >As I explained in my post to Bill, I consider bigotry to be an intolerance for
> >something that harms no one, like same sex marriages. Murder, theft, drug use
>
> Ah, you didn't state that in the original post, thus leading to some
> confusion on my part.
Because my original question in my first post was not 'did I correctly use the word
"bigotry"?'; it was 'could the way this person changed what I said be considered a
fallacious argument?'. It just got lost because of the word 'bigotry', as soon as I
replaced the words 'religious belief', 'bigotry' and 'same sex marriages' and replaced
them with the letters "A", "B", and "C", it was easier to understand what my question
actually was in the original post (a mistake I won't make again <grin>).
> >could all have serious consequences for other people. I don't see how anyone else
> >is harmed by a same sex marriage.
>
> I don't have much time, but in short my view is that same sex
> marriages, while not harming me in particular, would harm society as a
> whole. In effect, it would lessen the importance of "regular"
> marriages, which I see as central to the good of society.
I really didn't want this thread to become new forum for this discussion; oh well, hind
sight, and all that.
This is where I disagree (obviously); I don't see how what anyone else does, who is
not involved in a given relationship, can "lessen" what that relationship means to
those who *are* involved in that relationship.
--
Tanja
Rowan Mayfair
> Rowan Mayfair wrote in message <3741BF46...@innocent.com>...
> >Then please, tell me what you feel the harm *is*.
>
> This is an obective sounding argument, of course, and it is used
> all the time. After all, it goes, the only reason for having laws
> is to prevent or minimize harm, so any activity that doesn't cause
> harm should be permitted. Furthermore, the burden of proof that
> harm is caused should always be on the state.
<snip very good discourse on pologmy>
> In the case of same sex marriages, the most significant secular
> consequence is that partners in such a marriage control each other's
> assets. This would have been a problem in the past where the assets
> were in effect property of the family - either the husband's or the
> wife's, depending on cultural conventions - and to the offspring.
> Same sex marriages wreak havoc with this setup, and it isn't at all
> surprising to find prohibitions against it in most cultures that
> depended on this economic relationship. However, in the case of our
> society this is no longer true, and I find it hard to see a reason
> for the state to interfere, at least not on these grounds. There may
> be other reasons, of course, that I'm not aware of at the moment, and
> which would deserve separate consideration. But you see why I think
> that asking for evidence of harm seems to be an overly simplistic way
> of looking at the problem.
Well, sure, but you are, at least from all appearances seen in this
thread, a reasonable and rational thinker, qualities that aren't found
all that often in debates of this nature. If all someone says is "Your
failure to see the problem is not proof that there isn't one" (problem
meaning harm in same sex marriages) but doesn't offer what he sees the
problem (harm) *is*, responding, "Your ability to see a problem is not
proof that there is one" isn't exactly an intelligent comeback that will
gain me any ground. I suppose you could come up with every reason why
you might think someone else may think it's evidence of harm and then
debate those, but that seems an exercise in futility because you can't be
sure, unless told, why someone else thinks something is harmful.
--
Tanja
Carl Fink
>
>"First off I'd like to address Tanja about saying that those of us that
>
>familiar enough with them to be able to determine which one.
It's not an argument at all -- it's not even an assertion. It's just a
statement that your interlocutor wants to discuss your comment.
--
Carl Fink ca...@dm.net
"This fool wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy."
-Martin Luther on Copernicus' theory that the Earth orbits the sun
Rowan Mayfair
> On Mon, 17 May 1999 18:57:43 GMT Rowan Mayfair <row...@innocent.com> wrote:
> >
> >"First off I'd like to address Tanja about saying that those of us that
> >don't agree with same sex marriages [are] being bigoted."
> >
> >I was sure that was some sort of 'fallacious argument' but am not
> >familiar enough with them to be able to determine which one.
>
> It's not an argument at all -- it's not even an assertion. It's just a
> statement that your interlocutor wants to discuss your comment.
But that *wasn't* my comment. That was why I asked here about fallacious
arguments.
I am trying to think of another example. Ok, no one need tell me how lame an
example this is, I already know, but it's the best I can come up with right
now:
If I were to say that "if one is against A *because* of B, *then* it is C", and
the person I was having this discussion then said, "First off I'd like to
address Tanja about saying that those of us that that don't agree with A are
C", does that help anyone understand why I thought it might have been a
'fallacious argument' ? Especially when you consider that I have already
stated that I don't really understand them.
--
Tanja
Doug
>
> "First off I'd like to address Tanja about saying that those of us that
> don't agree with same sex marriages [are] being bigoted."
The person that said this statement is not
arguing at all. The person says
"... I'd like to address Tanja ..."
Tanja is the one, according to the above, who
asserted or alleged to have asserted that to
disagree with same sex marriage is being bigoted.
*What* the above person said in addressing Tanya
AFTER saying the above is the argument. Or, the
fact that Tanya implied and/or said something
like this at all ...
----------------------------------------
Return Address is dmckean'at'gte'dot'net
----------------------------------------
Bill Baldwin
>If I were to say that "if one is against A *because* of B, *then* it is C",
>to address Tanja about saying that those of us that that don't agree
>with A are C", does that help anyone understand why I thought it might
>have been a 'fallacious argument' ?
Ok, I think it just clicked. And if so, that was very helpful. We were all
concentrating on whether you were using the term "bigot" correctly.
You said, "Anyone who opposes same sex couples *because* of religion is
bigoted."
She said, "First off, I'd like to address Tanja who said that *everyone* who
opposes same sex couples for *any* reason is bigoted."
In that case, yes, your interlocutor made a fallacious jump. She reasoned
from the particular to the general. What you've got there is a genuine, in
the wild, syllogistic fallacy, specifically the Fallacy of the Illicit
Major. That's defined and explained at:
http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/illmaj.htm
Bill Baldwin
> Bill Baldwin says...
>
>> Ok, I think it just clicked. And if so, that was very helpful. We were
>>all concentrating on whether you were using the term "bigot" correctly.
>>
>> You said, "Anyone who opposes same sex couples *because* of religion is
>> bigoted." She said, "First off, I'd like to address Tanja who said that
>> *everyone* who opposes same sex couples for *any* reason is bigoted."
>>
>> In that case, yes, your interlocutor made a fallacious jump. She reasoned
>> from the particular to the general. What you've got there is a genuine,
>>in the wild, syllogistic fallacy, specifically the Fallacy of the Illicit
>> Major. That's defined and explained at:
>>
>> http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/illmaj.htm
>>
>> I'll paste the definition here:
>>
>> The predicate term of the conclusion refers to all members of that
>>category, but the same term in the premises refers only to some members
>>of that category.
>
>illicit major here - and isn't, in fact, making any argument at all, not
>in the excerpt quoted here.
Sure she is. She's drawing the fallacious conclusion that because Tanja said
some A are B, therefore all A are B.
>The fallacy of the illicit major states:
>
>All A are B. No C is A. Thus no C is B.
For example:
Major: All dogs are mammals
Minor: No cats are dogs
Concl: No cats are mammals
Sure, that's one way in which the major premise can be distributed or
processed illicitly. Are you saying there are no others or that there are
others but they have different names? Do you disagree with Stephen Downes'
definition of the fallacy as quoted above? (I do, because it's too narrow.
But I do think he describes *one* way the fallacy of the illicit major can
take place.) Here's another web definition of illicit major:
An illicit argumentation in which the major term of a syllogism is taken
wider in the conclusion than in the premise.
That's at http://www.harborside.com/home/r/radix/aipphilglossary2.htm#I
Here's an example:
Major: All big dogs are a nuisance
Minor: Fifi is a dog
Concl: Fifi is a nuisance
Ok, now let's see what we agree on. I'll start with the easiest and work
down. Let me know where you get off the bus.
1) The last example is a legitimate example of a logical fallacy.
2) There must be a name for that fallacy because it's so common. (I'm
reasoning inductively here, so don't jump down my logical throat.)
3) That name is "fallacy of the illicit major." (If not that, then what?
"Straw man" just seems too general.)
4) Tanja's interlocutor committed this fallacy, in effect, by hearing the
premise "All people who oppose same sex couples for religious reasons are
bigots" and drawing the conclusion "All people who oppose same sex couples
are bigots." (The alternative is to introduce a hidden minor premise, namely
"No one opposes same sex couples except for religious reasons." Then the
conclusion would be valid and debate would probably center around the truth
of the minor premise.)
Of course, we could just call the whole thing a misunderstanding. Which is
what it seems to be. But we're trying to answer Tanja's question.
Helge Moulding
>This may be splitting hairs, but I do see a difference between saying that
>one particular view is bigoted, and calling someone a bigot.
There is no difference. You aren't attacking the argument, you are simply
classifying it as "bad". You are suggesting that "if you believe this way
for no other reason than because you read it in the Bible, then your point
of view is, ipso facto, wrong."
For example, the Bible teaches "thou shalt not kill." Suppose someone had
no other ethical training than reading the Ten Commandments: would you be
telling them that killing is ok?
You can see why that kind of argument is fallacious.
>I did ask how a same sex marriage would be harmful to others,
>which I think left religion completely out of it.
No, my suggestion was that you needed to address the speaker's argument
against SSM without bringing the speaker's religious beliefs into the
picture. I agree that your own arguments shouldn't introduce religion, but
you also need to address the other person's point, otherwise you are
committing a fallacy in that you aren't even addressing points made by the
other person.
In this case you might have countered by saying that civil marriages are
not religious ceremonies, and that because of that someone's religious
beliefs have no bearing on civil marriages. You might point out that civil
marriages give partners access to services and protections that are not
related to religious beliefs, and that all life partners need access to
these services and protections. You might show that religious communities
have nothing to do with these services and protections, and therefore have
no say in who gets them.
I'm sure there are a dozen more arguments along those lines. None of them
suggest that someone who objects to SSM on religious grounds is a bad
person, or that the objections themselves are evil.
Of course, the bald assertion that one objects to something for religious
reasons can be countered by saying that the other believes the opposite,
also for religious reasons. As long as the discussion concerns public
policy in a secular state like the USA, where the law specifically
prohibits one religion from being favored over another, no further argument
is needed on that particular point: the score is 15 all. Your serve.
>Maybe it's just that I am not good at debating, but it seems awfully
>hard not to address another's religious beliefs when that is the reason
>they give for being against something.
It may be hard, but it is necessary, as long as you want to insist on
logical reasoning. You can certainly abandon logical reasoning altogether,
which most people who indulge in this particular debate do, with gusto.
>Because that wasn't what I said, it was an exaggeration.
You are right, and I missed that entirely. My bad.
"All A are B, this C is an A, therefore this C is a B" was your statement.
She then argued that you wrote "All C are B," which mistates your major
premise. (A - beliefs based on religion, B - beliefs that are bigoted,
C - opposition to SSM.) Maybe she meant to take issue with your major
premise - which I do, as I wrote above - but at least that particular
statement introduces a fallacy if she holds by it.
--
Helge "Anyone for hellacious arguments?" Moulding
mlo...@lobo.civetsystems.com
> John Colton wrote:
>
> As I explained in my post to Bill, I consider bigotry to be an intolerance for
> something that harms no one, like same sex marriages.
How many legs does a dog have if you call a tail a leg? Four.
You may "consider" bigotry to be whatever you want. Disagreement on
any subject is not bigotry. Humpty-Dumpty was wrong.
> Murder, theft, drug use could all have serious consequences for
> other people.
Drug use? How the hell did drug use get in there? How same-sex
marriages affect other people is far more obvious to me than how drug
use would.
You're lucky I don't consider you a bigot.
> I don't see how anyone else
> is harmed by a same sex marriage.
Your failure to see the problem is not proof that there isn't one.
M.
mlo...@lobo.civetsystems.com
> mlo...@lobo.civetsystems.com wrote:
> > How same-sex
> > marriages affect other people is far more obvious to me than how drug
> > use would.
>
> Ok, then maybe you can explain how two people of the same sex marrying will harm you
> ? Because it is not obvious to me.
The argument goes (I don't necessarily accept any of this, I'm just
relaying the opinions of others) that allowing marriage to mean
anything other than a potentially procreative unit devalues marriage
as an institution.
Marriage exists because the state profits from it. You agree to form
a family unit, raise kids, buy a home and a dog and an SUV -- all of
which stabilizes society -- and in return society gives you certain
privileges. That's the deal. Extended those privileges to people who
*aren't* forming a permanent union (and non-procreative unions tend to
be unstable) makes the privileges less valuable.
Again, this isn't my viewpoint, but it is the majority viewport and it
isn't irrational.
> I wouldn't consider it insult if you accused me of being a bigot
> because I feel that all people, no matter their sexual orientation, deserve the same
> rights as everyone else in this country.
If you don't consider "bigot" an insult, you don't understand what the
word means.
As for "all people deserving the same rights as everyone else" -- you
may want to rephrase that by the way, but we know what you mean --
no-one is proposing to deprive homosexuals of rights. They can speak
and write freely, peaceably assemble, petition the government for
redress of grievance, and so forth.
What many homosexuals (and many other people) would like is for
homosexuals AS A CLASS to be given the same standing as some other
classes in having certain privileges at the expense of others.
You, Tanja, do not have the right to a job. You, under current law,
have the privilege of not being denied employment of the grounds your
membership in certain classes (your sex, race, &c), although if
someone didn't want to hire you because you are a Pisces, you would
have no cause of action.
In practice, this privilege is worthless. Someone who does not want
to hire you won't, and if the real reason is an unlawful one, will
concoct a more acceptable one. The only beneficiaries are the
lawyers.
Now some people (including Tanja apparently) would like to extend the
useless privilege to orientation (although not, so far, to zodiac
sign). Even if I thought she had the moral right to dictate to others
on what basis they made private decisions, I don't see the practical
value in the extension.
M.
Bill Baldwin
>(2) Tanja's adversary is guilty of a pathetically transparent attempt to
>restate her statement in more favorable terms. I'd call that a "straw
>man," although it's a damn poor attempt in the genre.
Ouch! That oughta hold Tanja's adversary for a while. In the first place
she's being illogical. And in the second, she's not even good at being
*that*.
I'm going to save that idea for some moment when "So's your old man" just
isn't enough.
Rowan Mayfair
<snip>
> >> Same sex marriages wreak havoc with this setup ...
> >Er, well, I don't see how.
>
> Same sex partners have no offspring.
That is not always true, though. There are same sex couples that have
children; biological offspring even. In the case of two women, there
are artificial insemination banks, and in the case of two men, there is
the surrogate mother. There are also heterosexual partners/marriages
that don't produce children, sometimes by choice other times by
infertility.
> They enjoy equal control
> over their property.
Don't all married couples share equal control over their property ?
> They can pass it on out of the family.
> The family loses control of the property. Although it causes
> no harm, it is a Bad Thing where families are expected to
> maintain a proprietary interest.
I'm not sure I understand that. What I get from that is that in same
sex marriages either partner can leave his own portion of a family
estate to the other partner, and therefore, to someone out of the family
? I don't see how that is different from heterosexual marriages:
husband is part of a propertied family, dies, leaves everything to his
wife, who is *not* a member of the family. Isn't that what a prenuptial
agreement is protection against ?
--
Tanja
--
"You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be
misquoted and used against you in a future post."
Rowan Mayfair
> Marriage exists because the state profits from it. You agree to form
> a family unit, raise kids, buy a home and a dog and an SUV -- all of
> which stabilizes society -- and in return society gives you certain
> privileges. That's the deal.
What about couples that don't plan on raising kids or buying a home, etc. but still wish
to marry ? Should they be denied marriage and all of society's perks that go along with
it ? Besides, who's to say that a same sex couple won't have kids, buy a home, etc. ? I
don't have a cite for it, but I would feel pretty safe in assuming that it does happen,
even without marriage. It happens with straight couples that don't marry as well. The
difference being the straight couples can get married any time they wish do so if they
want in on the privileges.
> Extended those privileges to people who
> *aren't* forming a permanent union (and non-procreative unions tend to
> be unstable) makes the privileges less valuable.
What's the divorce rate for couples that do have children ? I know this is purely
anecdotal, but I know more people whose parents are divorced than people whose parents are
still together. I can't see how being a part of a procreative couple has made the union
of marriage more stable. I am not saying give those privileges to couples who don't
form a permanent union, but allow all couples, no matter their orientation, the chance to
actually form a permanent union. Isn't the divorce rate in this country exceedingly high,
something like 50% ? That doesn't exactly lend strength to the argument that heterosexual
couples have better stability when it comes to forming permanent unions.
> Again, this isn't my viewpoint, but it is the majority viewport and it
> isn't irrational.
>
> > I wouldn't consider it insult if you accused me of being a bigot
> > because I feel that all people, no matter their sexual orientation, deserve the same
> > rights as everyone else in this country.
>
> If you don't consider "bigot" an insult, you don't understand what the
> word means.
No, I understand what the word means. Just because you would have meant it as an insult,
doesn't mean that I would have been insulted by it.
rob...@bestweb.net
>Is the Utah prohibition on the act of marriage, as I would take
>Helge's statement to mean, or on the cohabitation?
An article in Reason magazine a few years ago quoted a sheriff as saying
that a certain polygamist couple could do anything married people could do
except call themselves married.
Robert
Net-Tamer V 1.11 - Registered
Helge Moulding
>> Same sex partners have no offspring.
>That is not always true, though.
I was not talking about same sex couples in our culture, as
my point was that this particular objection - family loses
economic control - is not a compelling one in our culture.
--
Helge Moulding
Bailey Cameron
mlo...@lobo.civetsystems.com wrote:
> Marriage exists because the state profits from it. You agree to form
> a family unit, raise kids, buy a home and a dog and an SUV -- all of
> which stabilizes society -- and in return society gives you certain
> privileges. That's the deal. Extended those privileges to people who
> *aren't* forming a permanent union (and non-procreative unions tend to
> be unstable) makes the privileges less valuable.
>
> Again, this isn't my viewpoint, but it is the majority viewport and it
> isn't irrational.
It isn't irrational? 50% of heterosexual marriages end in divorce, but
the heterosexual "union" is MORE stable than the homosexual union?
Prove it. I would also like to see proof that people without children
(non-procreative unions) are less likely to stay together. I'd say it's
the opposite, couples without children would have less to fight about,
but I'm just guessing.
> In practice, this privilege is worthless. Someone who does not want
> to hire you won't, and if the real reason is an unlawful one, will
> concoct a more acceptable one. The only beneficiaries are the
> lawyers.
>
> Now some people (including Tanja apparently) would like to extend the
> useless privilege to orientation (although not, so far, to zodiac
> sign). Even if I thought she had the moral right to dictate to others
> on what basis they made private decisions, I don't see the practical
> value in the extension.
I'm reading this as "the privileges of marriage are worthless, the only
people who will benefit will be lawyers, we shouldn't bother with making
gay marriages legal because it won't do gays (or society) any good
anyway." Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's what I'm going on...
If the privileges of marriage are worthless, as I think you're saying,
then why don't we just abolish marriage altogether? Think of all the
money we'd save! Courts would be freed up, lawyers would be out of
work, people could settle their own differences when relationships dissolved...
There's a lot of good reasons why that's not the way it is. If you go
back 50 years or so, to when most women stayed at home and most men
worked, the reason is clear. Wife is with Husband for 20 years - keeps
his house, raises his children, etc. etc. She never takes a job outside
of the home. Husband decides, after 20 years, to leave Wife for
Girlfriend, and kicks Wife out of the house. Wife has NO money, her
kids are in college, and they have NO money, her parents are dead, she
has no skills with which to get a job, she has no savings (because
Husband earned all the money, and everything is in his name), she has
nowhere to go.
After 20 years of marriage, of making it possible for Husband to earn
everything that he's earned, should she be left with nothing? No,
that's why there are lawyers and courts and social workers and a hundred
other people involved - to protect Wife (and to protect Husband, if the
situation were reversed).
If we were to extend the privileges of marriage to gay couples, it would
provide them with the same financial safety net. In addition, health
insurance benefits, life insurance benefits, tax savings, joint
ownership of property, etc. etc. All of these things will provide
additional financial safety to gay couples.
The only harm it will do to society would be to piss Fred Phelps off.
There's this idea leftover from the 70's that gays and lesbians are less
monogamous than straight people. This just is not true. If nothing
else, the gay people of the 90's are MORE monogamous than straights,
because they've had the "safer sex" and "protect yourself from AIDS"
messages drilled into their heads even more than straights have (since
we thought AIDS was a "gay disease" in the early 80's).
Denying same-sex couples the right to marry is exactly the same thing as
denying interracial couples the right to marry would be/was. It is
bigoted.
Keep your politics out of my bedroom.
Bailey "I put in my application to be a lesbian, but they haven't called
me yet" Cameron
PokeCheck8
Re-post from the AOL SDMB-
"Today at my doc's office, while I was waiting in the exam room for the
midwife, I took a closer look at the bulletin board. There, with all the other
pictures of babies, was a birth announcement. Two women, and a baby- "Brenda
and Bonnie Welcome Baby Carrie." Beneath it was a photo of one of the women
holding the baby in the hospital bed- so this was obviously a *donor*
situation- not adoption.
The state of MA doesn't recognize same-sex unions as "marriage." So I started
wondering what, if anything, happens to the other woman's rights to parent the
child, should the relationship end? Can the biological mother exclude this
woman? Can the bio mother sue the other woman for child support? Does the
other woman need to legally adopt the baby? Is that possible? Oh...so many
questions. I was too sheepish to ask the midwife about this couple.
"
Remove the BlueLine to increase scoring chances.
David Lentz
How about the more important question. When will the kid ever see
his father? One of the more absurd notions of feminism is that
father can be replaced by money.
David
Curtis Tack
>
[...]
> oteherwise negative, and a more or less falsifiable condition at that. One of
More strongly, bigotry is wrong (or at least admits of an unwillingness
to reason) *by definition*. from Mirriam-webster on-line:
Main Entry: big·ot·ry
Pronunciation: 'bi-g&-trE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ries
Date: circa 1674
1 : the state of mind of a bigot
2 : acts or beliefs characteristic of a bigot
Main Entry: big·ot
Pronunciation: 'bi-g&t
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French, hypocrite, bigot
Date: 1661
: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own
opinions and prejudices
- big·ot·ed /-g&-t&d/ adjective
- big·ot·ed·ly adverb
HpstrDufuz
>father can be replaced by money.
>
>David
>
Man, this place is troll heaven.
David Lentz
Curtis Tack wrote:
>
> HpstrDufuz wrote:
> >
> [...]
> > Well, I disagree. I think bigotry self evidently wrong, or bad, or evil, or
> > oteherwise negative, and a more or less falsifiable condition at that. One of
> [...]
>
> More strongly, bigotry is wrong (or at least admits of an unwillingness
> to reason) *by definition*. from Mirriam-webster on-line:
As commonly used, the term moral conviction is used to describe s
person whom hold attitudes with which you agree, and conversely
the term bigot is used to describe a holding attitudes which you
do not agree. While bigot do in fact exist, one should be
skeptical of the charge, as simply indicating disagreement.
Likewise the term enlightenment is used to describe the act of
holding a set of belief in which you agree and the term prejudice
is used to describe a the act of holding set of beliefs in which
you do not agree.
From the dictionary:
bigot (bîg´et) noun
One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race,
or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.
Excerpted from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English
Language, Third Edition © 1996 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Electronic version licensed from INSO Corporation; further
reproduction and distribution in accordance with the Copyright
Law of the United States. All rights reserved.
Video clip:
http://www.mrc.org/news/cyberalert/1998/cyb19981215.html#5
Does the definition fit?
David
HpstrDufuz
>> opinions and prejudices
>> - big·ot·ed /-g&-t&d/ adjective
>> - big·ot·ed·ly adverb
>
>believes is the actual *word of God*?
Well, I think its the intolerance.
>
>Or has the PC world now decided that the religious beliefs of billions of
>people now amount to no better than "opinions and prejudices?"
Those darn PC people...
>
>(PS: I'm an atheist, but an atheist who respects the faithful...)
Some atheist you are.
mlo...@lobo.civetsystems.com
> mlo...@lobo.civetsystems.com wrote:
>
> > Marriage exists because the state profits from it. You agree to form
> > a family unit, raise kids, buy a home and a dog and an SUV -- all of
> > which stabilizes society -- and in return society gives you certain
> > privileges. That's the deal.
>
> What about couples that don't plan on raising kids or buying a home, etc. but still wish
> to marry?
With whom are you arguing, Tanja? There is a large number of people
-- none of whom seem to be on this newsgroup -- who have weighed the
same points you are making and come to the opposite conclusion. If
you want me to say I don't agree with them, fine, I don't agree with
them.
Your original point was not that people who oppose gay marriage are in
error, but that they are somehow evil, and adducing statistics about
gay adoption and parental divorce is not going to prove that point.
M.
Dr H
On Wed, 19 May 1999, Scott K. Stafford wrote:
}(PS: I'm an atheist, but an atheist who respects the faithful...)
Are you, then, a faithful atheist? :-)
Dr H
Rowan Mayfair
> For example, who is "harmed" if a father wants to have intercourse with
> his 10 year old daughter? The daughter? Ah, but what if she consents?
> Oh, she's not old enough to consent? OK, then what about a really,
> really, really, mature and eagerly consenting 15 year old girl boffing
> daddy? Isn't it a bit arbitrary to pick 18 as the year that a girl can
> consent to screw her father? Who is "harmed?"
Exactly. If some girl and her father decide to have an affair how would that 'harm' the
people on the other side of town, or in another state ? How does adding the words 'her
father' change 'normal' age of consent laws ? Isn't it a bit arbitrary to pick 18 as the year
that a girl can consent to screw period ? It seems idiotic to say, "You're old enough to
consent to sex, but not old enough to consent to your choice of partner(s)."
> I submit that the label on this can reads "Worms."
I won't argue with that; mainly because a lot of people can't discuss things of this nature
objectively.
Rowan Mayfair
> Rowan Mayfair <row...@innocent.com> writes:
>
> Your original point was not that people who oppose gay marriage are in
> error, but that they are somehow evil,
I have said I think they are intolerant (i.e. hold a bigoted view point in this regard) but I
also said (more than once) that I didn't think this is always a Bad Thing, as it would depend
on how one expresses their viewpoints (which goes both ways). Exactly where did I say that
'people who oppose gay marriage ...are somehow evil' ?!
And if by 'original point' you mean the post that started this thread, my point was 'is this
an example of a fallacious argument?', not 'is bigotry the right word?' or 'those who are
against same sex marriages are evil.' And, if I am not mistaken, by that comment, you just
gave me another example of a fallacious argument (Straw Man ?).
> and adducing statistics about gay adoption and parental divorce is not going to prove that
> point.
Well, considering that that *isn't* my point, it's a good thing that it doesn't prove it. The
point I was trying to make by those two items was that the point of view expressed in your
post as 'not irrational', *is* irrational because it's based on incomplete research.
What I don't understand is why you posted that argument in a direct reply to my asking you to
elaborate on your comment "How same-sex marriages affect other people is far more obvious *to
me* [1] than how drug use would" then put in the disclaimer that the argument 'isn't your
viewpoint' and you don't 'necessarily accept' any of it. Especially considering I wasn't
asking what the majority thinks is obvious, but what *you* think is.
--
Tanja
1. Emphasis added.
E. Mark Ping
Rowan Mayfair <row...@innocent.com> wrote:
>"Scott K. Stafford" wrote:
>
>> For example, who is "harmed" if a father wants to have intercourse
>> with his 10 year old daughter? The daughter? Ah, but what if she
>> consents? Oh, she's not old enough to consent? OK, then what about
>> a really, really, really, mature and eagerly consenting 15 year old
>> girl boffing daddy? Isn't it a bit arbitrary to pick 18 as the year
>> that a girl can consent to screw her father? Who is "harmed?"
>
>Exactly. If some girl and her father decide to have an affair how
>would that 'harm' the people on the other side of town, or in another
>state ? How does adding the words 'her father' change 'normal' age of
>consent laws ? Isn't it a bit arbitrary to pick 18 as the year that a
>girl can consent to screw period ? It seems idiotic to say, "You're
>old enough to consent to sex, but not old enough to consent to your
>choice of partner(s)."
>
>> I submit that the label on this can reads "Worms."
>
>I won't argue with that; mainly because a lot of people can't discuss
>things of this nature objectively.
And who is to decide what "objective" is? The fact is, you're applying
a label (objective or not) to people based on nothing more than your
personal beliefs. That is, you believe that some behavior is not
"harmful" whereas other people do believe it to be so. Are you then a
bigot for holding to your own definitions of "objective" and "harmful"?
--
| "If hard data were the filtering criterion
Mark Ping | you could fit the entire contents of the
ema...@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU | Internet on a floppy disk."
| - Cecil Adams, The Straight Dope Tells All
HpstrDufuz
He's a faitheist.
HpstrDufuz
>Rowan Mayfair <row...@innocent.com> wrote:
>>"Scott K. Stafford" wrote:
>>
>>> For example, who is "harmed" if a father wants to have intercourse
>>> with his 10 year old daughter? The daughter? Ah, but what if she
>>> consents? Oh, she's not old enough to consent? OK, then what about
>>> a really, really, really, mature and eagerly consenting 15 year old
>>> girl boffing daddy? Isn't it a bit arbitrary to pick 18 as the year
>>> that a girl can consent to screw her father? Who is "harmed?"
>>
>>Exactly. If some girl and her father decide to have an affair how
>>would that 'harm' the people on the other side of town, or in another
>>state ? How does adding the words 'her father' change 'normal' age of
>>consent laws ? Isn't it a bit arbitrary to pick 18 as the year that a
>>girl can consent to screw period ? It seems idiotic to say, "You're
>>old enough to consent to sex, but not old enough to consent to your
>>choice of partner(s)."
>>
>>> I submit that the label on this can reads "Worms."
>>
>>I won't argue with that; mainly because a lot of people can't discuss
>>things of this nature objectively.
>
>And who is to decide what "objective" is? The fact is, you're applying
>a label (objective or not) to people based on nothing more than your
>personal beliefs. That is, you believe that some behavior is not
>"harmful" whereas other people do believe it to be so. Are you then a
>bigot for holding to your own definitions of "objective" and "harmful"?
Now, is this a troll?
-Fast, pretty, and can't possibly be beat
Rowan Mayfair
> In article <37431475...@innocent.com>,
> Rowan Mayfair <row...@innocent.com> wrote:
> >"Scott K. Stafford" wrote:
> >
>
> >> I submit that the label on this can reads "Worms."
> >
> >I won't argue with that; mainly because a lot of people can't discuss
> >things of this nature objectively.
>
> And who is to decide what "objective" is? The fact is, you're applying
> a label (objective or not) to people based on nothing more than your
> personal beliefs.
My mistake was in using the word 'objectively', which was wrong. I meant some
people have a problem discussing things of this nature calmly without resorting
to yelling and name-calling.
> That is, you believe that some behavior is not
> "harmful" whereas other people do believe it to be so. Are you then a
> bigot for holding to your own definitions of "objective" and "harmful"?
Have you read my other posts in this thread ? I've said at least once that my
viewpoints could be considered by others to be bigoted.
David Zeiger
wrote:
>
>It isn't irrational? 50% of heterosexual marriages end in divorce, but
>the heterosexual "union" is MORE stable than the homosexual union?
>Prove it. I would also like to see proof that people without children
>(non-procreative unions) are less likely to stay together. I'd say it's
>the opposite, couples without children would have less to fight about,
>but I'm just guessing.
<devil's advocate>
I'd say that it's irrational only if you assume recent trends are
permanent ones. Over the history of marraige, 50% haven't ended in
divorce. In fact, I believe that statistic isn't even accurate
for those alive today, I believe it was measuring what percentage
of marraiges that begin now will end in divorce.
So the historic record would suggest that they are stable,
and I don't think it's inherently irrational to believe that
current trends are not going to remain over the long-term.
It's generally considered "well known" that many people
who would otherwise get divorced remain together "For the
sake of the children." At least until the kid is shipped off
to college or whatever, at which point the benifit to society
drops signifigantly anyway. How actually true this "well
known" fact is I don't know, however.
</devils advocate>
--
David Zeiger dze...@the-institute.net
Whenever I find myself in a difficult situation, I ask myself "What
Would Jesus Do?" The mental image of my opposition being cast into
pits of hellfire for all eternity *is* comforting, but probably not
what the inventors of the phrase had in mind.
Rowan Mayfair
> row...@innocent.com writes...
>
> > > For example, who is "harmed" if a father wants to have intercourse with
> > > his 10 year old daughter? The daughter? Ah, but what if she consents?
> > > Oh, she's not old enough to consent? OK, then what about a really,
> > > really, really, mature and eagerly consenting 15 year old girl boffing
> > > daddy? Isn't it a bit arbitrary to pick 18 as the year that a girl can
> > > consent to screw her father? Who is "harmed?"
> >
> > Exactly. If some girl and her father decide to have an affair how would that 'harm' the
> > people on the other side of town, or in another state ? How does adding the words 'her
> > father' change 'normal' age of consent laws ? Isn't it a bit arbitrary to pick 18 as the year
> > that a girl can consent to screw period ? It seems idiotic to say, "You're old enough to
> > consent to sex, but not old enough to consent to your choice of partner(s)."
>
> Perhaps.
>
> And while I have to nod approvingly at your logical consistency here, I'm
> not sure how many people you'll bring with you down the road of "anything
> goes, so long as no one is harmed." My suspicion is that you'd see lots
> of general agreement about this until it was pointed out clearly what
> innovations such a system of legality would loose upon the world.
Probably because, as you said, very few agree on what 'harm' is. Doesn't this tie into your point
in the Viagra thread: 'What I am saying is that we cannot base our system of *morality* on nothing
better than what 51% of the people want. Morality and legal issues must be discussed without
recourse to the "if 51% of the people want it that way, end of story" argument.' ? It's not the
same issue, but it sure applies, no ?
> For instance, necrophilia and coprophagia; who is "harmed" if someone
> digs up a corpse, has sex with it, then cooks and consumes the object of
> his desires?
It depends on whether one thinks the dead have any rights (the right to remain buried, the right not
to be mutilated, ingested etc.), if they do, then I could argue that there was no mutual consent and
therefore is 'wrong'.
> I suspect that many "no harm? no foul!" devotees would fall along the
> wayside.
I can't help but think this is because, emotionally, people (myself included) tend to think that
just because something is repugnant or 'wrong' for them (for whatever reasons or beliefs) it must be
harmful.
> > > I submit that the label on this can reads "Worms."
> >
> > I won't argue with that; mainly because a lot of people can't discuss things of this nature
> > objectively.
>
> I'm willing to discuss anything objectively, but I would also define
> "harm" broadly enough that a great number of currently illegal things
> would remain illegal. For example, I think incest among family members
> is "harmful," and consent is irrelevant.
Personally, I happen to agree with you, my arguments regarding incest were merely a devil's advocate
type of thing.
--
Tanja
mlo...@lobo.civetsystems.com
> mlo...@lobo.civetsystems.com wrote:
>
> > Marriage exists because the state profits from it. You agree to form
> > a family unit, raise kids, buy a home and a dog and an SUV -- all of
> > which stabilizes society -- and in return society gives you certain
> > privileges. That's the deal. Extended those privileges to people who
> > *aren't* forming a permanent union (and non-procreative unions tend to
> > be unstable) makes the privileges less valuable.
> >
> > Again, this isn't my viewpoint, but it is the majority viewport and it
> > isn't irrational.
>
> It isn't irrational? 50% of heterosexual marriages end in divorce, but
> the heterosexual "union" is MORE stable than the homosexual union?
50% *over the course of a lifetime*. Which means the average
heterosexual marriage can be expected to last longer than, say, a
skyscraper.
Obviously, we don't have any figures on the expected length of
homosexual marriage, but (male) homosexuality in fact tends, even
today, to be characterized by more promiscuity than heterosexuality.
Which makes total sense to me. Heck, if I were trying to sleep with
people who had a little resistance to the idea of sleep with people as
I do, well, I'd be a happy guy. It has more to do with being male
than any orientation. Look at Wilt Chamberlain.
> > In practice, this privilege is worthless. Someone who does not want
> > to hire you won't, and if the real reason is an unlawful one, will
> > concoct a more acceptable one. The only beneficiaries are the
> > lawyers.
> >
> > Now some people (including Tanja apparently) would like to extend the
> > useless privilege to orientation (although not, so far, to zodiac
> > sign). Even if I thought she had the moral right to dictate to others
> > on what basis they made private decisions, I don't see the practical
> > value in the extension.
>
> I'm reading this as "the privileges of marriage are worthless,
Actually, the privilege mentioned has to do with anti-discrimination
laws. The privileges of marriage are quite valuable.
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's what I'm going on...
Why all make mistakes once in a while. I've got a small mistake
scheduled for Tuesday.
> If the privileges of marriage are worthless, as I think you're saying,
> then why don't we just abolish marriage altogether?
That's my belief. The privileges are valuable, but that is just value
stolen from single people.
> Think of all the
> money we'd save! Courts would be freed up, lawyers would be out of
> work, people could settle their own differences when relationships dissolved...
Now you've got it.
> There's a lot of good reasons why that's not the way it is.
Excuses are like, err, belly buttons: everybody's got one and no-one
wants to see yours. Well, it wasn't "belly buttons" originally...
> If we were to extend the privileges of marriage to gay couples, it would
> provide them with the same financial safety net.
At whose expense? Where is this value that's raining down from the
skies? Gay marriage would just allow another bunch of snouts into an
already crowded trough.
> There's this idea leftover from the 70's that gays and lesbians are less
> monogamous than straight people. This just is not true. If nothing
> else, the gay people of the 90's are MORE monogamous than straights,
> because they've had the "safer sex" and "protect yourself from AIDS"
> messages drilled into their heads even more than straights have
I don't know where Bailey lives, but here in San Francisco, where
"bareback clubs" (that match up HIV- and HIV+ partners for unsafe sex)
are the latest rage, the pieties she's mouthing ring rather hollow.
> (since we thought AIDS was a "gay disease" in the early 80's).
As we do here in the late '90s, since female-to-male transmission is
quite rare, only homosexuals and needle users are really good carriers.
> Denying same-sex couples the right to marry is exactly the same thing as
> denying interracial couples the right to marry would be/was. It is
> bigoted.
An assertion without basis in fact. Marriage has existed
traditionally to create a basis for raising children. That the
privilege has been extended to couples who cannot/will not have
children is a practical aberration of little significance.
You want to change the meaning of marriage -- fine, as I say, I'd like
to abolish it altogether -- but let's not pretend you're doing
something different or the people who want to keep the old definition
are monsters.
> Keep your politics out of my bedroom.
Now you've done it, you've made me HIT MY CAPS-LOCK KEY.
THESE ARE NOT *MY* POLITICS.
They are the politics of perhaps 70% of the population -- if it were
up to me, I'd let groups of up to nine people marry.
> Bailey "I put in my application to be a lesbian, but they haven't called
> me yet" Cameron
Sorry, we are so backed up over here. Even Janet Reno isn't getting
her card before August. Thank you for your continued patience.
M.
Rowan Mayfair
> >>> I submit that the label on this can reads "Worms."
> >>
> >>I won't argue with that; mainly because a lot of people can't discuss
> >>things of this nature objectively.
> >
> >And who is to decide what "objective" is? The fact is, you're applying
> >a label (objective or not) to people based on nothing more than your
> >personal beliefs. That is, you believe that some behavior is not
> >"harmful" whereas other people do believe it to be so. Are you then a
> >bigot for holding to your own definitions of "objective" and "harmful"?
>
> Now, is this a troll?
It's possible, of course, but I think it is a valid point.
E. Mark Ping
Rowan Mayfair <row...@innocent.com> wrote:
>
>My mistake was in using the word 'objectively', which was wrong. I
>meant some people have a problem discussing things of this nature
>calmly without resorting to yelling and name-calling.
Ah, you ment civility. Yes, that's often lacking, especially in usenet
space.
HpstrDufuz
>
>> >>> I submit that the label on this can reads "Worms."
>> >>
>> >>I won't argue with that; mainly because a lot of people can't discuss
>> >>things of this nature objectively.
>> >
>> >And who is to decide what "objective" is? The fact is, you're applying
>> >a label (objective or not) to people based on nothing more than your
>> >personal beliefs. That is, you believe that some behavior is not
>> >"harmful" whereas other people do believe it to be so. Are you then a
>> >bigot for holding to your own definitions of "objective" and "harmful"?
>>
>> Now, is this a troll?
>
>It's possible, of course, but I think it is a valid point.
>
>
Um...well, I think "harmful" and "objective" both have well agreed upon
universal definitions in English, and society, western civilization have
imposed certain values upon us. Chief above these is its wrong to do wrong, and
it is usually wrong to hurt other people, or generaly increase the level of
misery in the world. So a relativist argument such as this isn't really all
that interesting, i'd say.
mlo...@lobo.civetsystems.com
> mlo...@lobo.civetsystems.com wrote:
>
> > Rowan Mayfair <row...@innocent.com> writes:
> >
> > Your original point was not that people who oppose gay marriage are in
> > error, but that they are somehow evil,
>
> I have said I think they are intolerant (i.e. hold a bigoted view
> point in this regard)
They might, in fact, be intolerant, ("Resolved: the subset of the
population that opposes same-sex marriage is characterized by
intolerance.") but the fact isn't inherently or obviously true.
> What I don't understand is why you posted that argument in a direct reply to my asking you to
> elaborate on your comment "How same-sex marriages affect other people is far more obvious *to
> me* [1] than how drug use would" then put in the disclaimer that the argument 'isn't your
> viewpoint' and you don't 'necessarily accept' any of it. Especially considering I wasn't
> asking what the majority thinks is obvious, but what *you* think is.
I just meant the mechanism is more obvious -- society distributes
privileges in a fashion that it thinks will maintain stability. I
don't think society *should* do this or that it is doing it properly.
The drug-use thing is apparently that people will become less
productive if they take drugs. Since drugs laws clearly make this
problem *worse* rather than better, I just don't get the logic.
M.
Bill Baldwin
>Bailey Cameron wrote:
>>
>>It isn't irrational? 50% of heterosexual marriages end in divorce, but
>>the heterosexual "union" is MORE stable than the homosexual union?
>>(non-procreative unions) are less likely to stay together. I'd say it's
>>the opposite, couples without children would have less to fight about,
>>but I'm just guessing.
>
><devil's advocate>
>I'd say that it's irrational only if you assume recent trends are
>permanent ones. Over the history of marraige, 50% haven't ended in
>divorce.
<devil's other advocate>
I started to respond exactly the same way. But then I thought, why are there
more divorces today? Answer: 1) American society doesn't stigmatize them as
much as it used to. 2) They are legally much easier to get.
So how do we return to the stability that marriage used to have? By
re-stigmatizing divorce and making divorce legally much harder to get. But
arguably if the same laws and stigmas were attached to dissolving homosexual
union, such unions would be made stable. In other words, it may not be the
inherent but the enforced stability that makes all the difference.
It's comparing apples and oranges to take our current situation and say
heterosexual unions are more stable. If we afforded homosexuals the right of
marriage and attached the same sanctions against their divorce, then we'd
have comparable situations. What would we find then? Well, we'd find that
heterosexual marriage is a little more stable because it's more likely to
produce children for the sake of whom couples stay together. Beyond that, I
don't know. Institutionalized, legally protected homosexual union has never
been tried as the basis or part of the basis for society.
Bill Baldwin
>My mistake was in using the word 'objectively', which was wrong. I meant
>some people have a problem discussing things of this nature calmly
>without resorting to yelling and name-calling.
Yup. That's why the word "bigot" creates more heat than light. Most people
take it as name calling. I'd encourage you to reconsider your use of the
term if you hope to pursue such topics in a civil atmosphere. I think that
would prove more fruitful than a last ditch stand on the denotation only of
the word as provided by the American Heritage Dictionary.
Ape Management
K. Stafford) wrote:
>
>For instance, necrophilia and coprophagia; who is "harmed" if someone
>digs up a corpse, has sex with it, then cooks and consumes the object of
>his desires?
I'd just like to interrupt this thread to point out that "coprophagia"
means "eating shit" not eating a corpse, as Scott's post seems to
imply.
"You think just because a guy reads comics,
he can't start some shit?!?"
--Mallrats
Friendly Fiend
Bailey Cameron <bail...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3742C41D...@hotmail.com...
> There's this idea leftover from the 70's that gays and lesbians are less
> monogamous than straight people. This just is not true. If nothing
> else, the gay people of the 90's are MORE monogamous than straights,
> because they've had the "safer sex" and "protect yourself from AIDS"
> messages drilled into their heads even more than straights have
There's simply no evidence to support this view. There is no heterosexual
phenomenon that equals the sexual promiscuity seen in gay bath houses.
Females are naturally generally more circumspect about with whom they have
sex. This offers a brake on the male impulse to have sex indiscrimanently.
In a homosexual relationship the brakes are off.
> (since we thought AIDS was a "gay disease" in the early 80's).
It still overwhelmingly is. See "The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS" by Michael
Fumento.
FF
Friendly Fiend
Curtis Tack <ct...@pamlico.net> wrote in message
news:3742E57F...@pamlico.net...
> More strongly, bigotry is wrong (or at least admits of an unwillingness
> to reason) *by definition*. from Mirriam-webster on-line:
>
> Pronunciation: 'bi-g&-trE
> Function: noun
> Inflected Form(s): plural -ries
> Date: circa 1674
> 1 : the state of mind of a bigot
> 2 : acts or beliefs characteristic of a bigot
>
> Main Entry: big·ot
> Pronunciation: 'bi-g&t
> Function: noun
> Etymology: Middle French, hypocrite, bigot
> Date: 1661
> opinions and prejudices
> - big·ot·ed /-g&-t&d/ adjective
> - big·ot·ed·ly adverb
I hereby declare publicly that I am obstinately and intolerantly devoted to
the following opinions:
"It is wrong to beat innocent children to death."
"You should never ingest large quantities of cyanide unless your intent is
to kill yourself."
"It is wrong to heave large heavy objects from highway overpasses into the
traffic below."
I will brook no argument. I will not be persuaded to change my opinions on
these points. My mind is made up.
So according to the Merriam Webster online dictionary I'm a bigot.
FF
Rowan Mayfair
> In article <37433353...@innocent.com>,
> Rowan Mayfair <row...@innocent.com> wrote:
> >
> >My mistake was in using the word 'objectively', which was wrong. I
> >meant some people have a problem discussing things of this nature
> >calmly without resorting to yelling and name-calling.
>
> Ah, you ment civility. Yes, that's often lacking, especially in usenet
> space.
Civility. That was the word I was searching for, thank you.
Rowan Mayfair
> Rowan Mayfair <row...@innocent.com> writes:
>
> > mlo...@lobo.civetsystems.com wrote:
> >
> > > Rowan Mayfair <row...@innocent.com> writes:
> > >
> > > Your original point was not that people who oppose gay marriage are in
> > > error, but that they are somehow evil,
> >
> > I have said I think they are intolerant (i.e. hold a bigoted view
> > point in this regard)
>
> They might, in fact, be intolerant, ("Resolved: the subset of the
> population that opposes same-sex marriage is characterized by
> intolerance.") but the fact isn't inherently or obviously true.
Have you read any of my other posts in this thread ? I have stated that my viewpoints could be
considered intolerant/bigoted by others who don't share the same viewpoints.
I still didn't say that 'people who oppose gay marriage are...somehow evil', I never even implied
it. See, I don't have a problem with you (or anyone else) thinking I'm intolerant to the
intolerance of others who oppose same sex marriages. My problem comes from you saying that because
I find someone's point of view bigoted/intolerant that I think they are evil. Especially when I
have already said that I don't necessarily think it's wrong or a Bad Thing.
> > What I don't understand is why you posted that argument in a direct reply to my asking you to
> > elaborate on your comment "How same-sex marriages affect other people is far more obvious *to
> > me* [1] than how drug use would" then put in the disclaimer that the argument 'isn't your
> > viewpoint' and you don't 'necessarily accept' any of it. Especially considering I wasn't
> > asking what the majority thinks is obvious, but what *you* think is.
>
> I just meant the mechanism is more obvious -- society distributes
> privileges in a fashion that it thinks will maintain stability. I
> don't think society *should* do this or that it is doing it properly.
> The drug-use thing is apparently that people will become less
> productive if they take drugs. Since drugs laws clearly make this
> problem *worse* rather than better, I just don't get the logic.
Apparently though 'society' doesn't appear to agree. If it was clear to 'society' that drug laws
are making the problem *worse* instead of better why is there such strong resistance to getting rid
of these problematic drug laws ? They may not agree with me that negative effects of drug use are
*more* obvious than those of same sex marriages, but they sure seem to think they are at least *as*
obvious. Just consider the amount of time, effort and money that is spent enforcing them and
punishing offenders.
--
Tanja
Rowan Mayfair
> > > For instance, necrophilia and coprophagia; who is "harmed" if someone
> > > digs up a corpse, has sex with it, then cooks and consumes the object of
> > > his desires?
> >
> > It depends on whether one thinks the dead have any rights (the right to remain buried, the right not
> > to be mutilated, ingested etc.), if they do, then I could argue that there was no mutual consent and
> > therefore is 'wrong'.
>
> But as I stated at the outset, I'm prepared to define "harm" fairly
> broadly. In this case, I would suggest that someone who digs up a body
> to use for unsavory practices is "harming" the survivors of the deceased
> who have a legitimate expectation that grandma is going to be allowed to
> lie in peace.
I completely agree, in fact that was going to be my first argument, but I thought I might get called on it
because one could consider that not really 'harming' the survivors. I tried to think of a reason that
wouldn't involve outside people.
> The only legitimate argument I feel can legitimately be made against
> same-sex marriages is rather a lame one; the "slippery slope." If we
> decide to allow SSM, then we're opening the door to tossing out all the
> laws which are based on "morality," such as incest prohibitions, etc.
> And a case can (once again, rather lamely, IMO...) be made that society
> itself is "harmed" by investing in SSM the same legitimacy that has
> traditionally been reserved for male/female unions.
>
> Does that make any sense? No? Good. I don't believe much of it,
> myself.
It doesn't to me.
I don't mean to be rude, but are you old enough to remember when it was illegal for interracial couples to
marry ? Was that same 'slippery slope' argument used then ? I was thinking that if it was, those same
people could actually use the fact that 'now people want us to allow same-sex marriages?!' as 'proof' that
it's true.
> > > I suspect that many "no harm? no foul!" devotees would fall along the
> > > wayside.
> >
> > I can't help but think this is because, emotionally, people (myself included) tend to think that
> > just because something is repugnant or 'wrong' for them (for whatever reasons or beliefs) it must be
> > harmful.
>
> Well, I'd like to keep in mind the fact that some religious people see
> "harm" all over the place in allowing SSM, for example the "harm" that
> results when their children see a crime against the Word Of God being
> encouraged by the government.
But that argument, at least, should be easily overruled on the basis that Church and State are supposed to
be separate. Aren't they ? (I never did pay too much attention in Government class.)
> I happen to think they're *wrong* to believe this, but my refusing to
> tolerate their beliefs is no better than their refusing to tolerate
> homosexual unions.
I agree with that. I guess it comes down to who is harmed *more* by having their beliefs trampled upon.
David Zeiger
>
>So how do we return to the stability that marriage used to have? By
>re-stigmatizing divorce and making divorce legally much harder to get.
Alternately, of course, we could just make marraige harder to
get. Off the top of my head, this seems like a more effective
way of doing it, though I'm sure it has a whole nest of problems
of it's own if I actually spent some time trying to come up
with any non-socially based enforcements...
Lars Eighner
the lovely and talented "Bill Baldwin" <ju...@micronet.net>
broadcast on alt.fan.cecil-adams:
|<devil's other advocate>
|I started to respond exactly the same way. But then I thought, why are there
|more divorces today? Answer: 1) American society doesn't stigmatize them as
|much as it used to. 2) They are legally much easier to get.
The real reason is that most economic production now occurs in
factories, offices, and so forth -- not on homesteads. For this
reason, marriage is no longer the property and business arrangement
it had been for many centuries. The result is that romantic love
has become the basis for marriage (when previously romantic love
was expected to occur in extramarital affairs, not in marriages
which were generally arranged by people other than the parties to
the marriage). The problem with that is that romantic love is
unstable. Some relationships that begin on the basis of romantic
love do endure, but usually because romantic love has been replaced
with some other kind of bond. Although divorce can be expensive and
messy even in modern times, it is not nearly as threatening as the
breakup of a homestead was in the old days. Divorce goes up
whenever there is urbanization and industrialization pretty
much regardless of the religion and culture involved.
|So how do we return to the stability that marriage used to have?
Blow up all the factories. Dismantle all the cities.
|By re-stigmatizing divorce and making divorce legally much harder to get.
Won't work. You can't make the tail wag the dog. Culture is the
tail. The economic system is the dog. When marriages were more
stable they were not based on romantic love. So how about re-establishing
arranged marriage -- have infants betrothed by their parents, as
they were in the past? That's not going to work either because
the home has replaced the homestead. Maybe somewhere down the
line many, many more people will have home businesses and that
will put the trend in the opposite direction.
|don't know. Institutionalized, legally protected homosexual union has never
|been tried as the basis or part of the basis for society.
Hasn't been tried by European people in the last 800 to 1000 years,
but certainly has be tried with reasonable success by many other
peoples and at other times.
--
Lars Eighner 700 Hearn #101 Austin TX 78703 eig...@io.com
(512) 474-1920 (FAX answers 6th ring) http://www.io.com/%7Eeighner/
Please visit my web bookstore: http://www.io.com/%7Eeighner/bookstore/
* Energizer Bunny Arrested! Charged with battery.
David Lentz
Friendly Fiend wrote:
<snip>
> I hereby declare publicly that I am obstinately and intolerantly devoted to
> the following opinions:
>
> "It is wrong to beat innocent children to death."
>
> "You should never ingest large quantities of cyanide unless your intent is
> to kill yourself."
>
> "It is wrong to heave large heavy objects from highway overpasses into the
> traffic below."
>
> I will brook no argument. I will not be persuaded to change my opinions on
> these points. My mind is made up.
>
> So according to the Merriam Webster online dictionary I'm a bigot.
You are about to hang yourself, I am afraid I must appoint myself
your legal representative,
The evidence you present, beliefs, does not quite prove the
charge to which you are pleading guilty.
I don't have Merriam Webster on disk so I quote what I have:
bigot (bîg´et) noun
One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race,
or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.
[French, from Old French.]
Excerpted from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English
Language, Third Edition © 1996 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Electronic version licensed from INSO Corporation; further
reproduction and distribution in accordance with the Copyright
Law of the United States. All rights reserved.
I offer a quote:
We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are
created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with
certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty,
and the Pursuit of Happiness- That to secure these Rights,
Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers
from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of
Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of
the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new
Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and
organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most
likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
I would describe the quote as strongly held statement of
political conviction, and it seems that the author was quite
unwilling to tolerant a dissenting view. A strongly held
political view. So do we declare Thomas Jefferson a bigot?
I resign
David
Bailey Cameron
*****groan***** Sometimes I wonder if we all truly live on the same planet.
mlo...@lobo.civetsystems.com wrote:
>
> Bailey Cameron <bail...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
> > mlo...@lobo.civetsystems.com wrote:
B> > It isn't irrational? 50% of heterosexual marriages end in divorce, but
B> > the heterosexual "union" is MORE stable than the homosexual union?
M> 50% *over the course of a lifetime*. Which means the average
M> heterosexual marriage can be expected to last longer than, say, a
M> skyscraper.
Huh??? No, 50% of the people who get married get divorced. I don't
know how you measure divorce after death...
M> Obviously, we don't have any figures on the expected length of
M> homosexual marriage, but (male) homosexuality in fact tends, even
M> today, to be characterized by more promiscuity than heterosexuality.
Which I addressed in my last post. It's a throwback to the 70's. It's
not a fact. You admit yourself that we don't have any figures, but then
say, in the same breath, that homosexual relationships IN FACT tend to
be more promiscuous. Prove it prove it prove it.
Even IF homosexual relationships are less stable, isn't that all the
MORE reason to offer the same financial protection as we do to married
straight couples to any people who set up households together, for
whatever length of time?
M> Which makes total sense to me. Heck, if I were trying to sleep with
M> people who had a little resistance to the idea of sleep with people as
M> I do, well, I'd be a happy guy. It has more to do with being male
M> than any orientation. Look at Wilt Chamberlain.
For every promiscuous gay male you produce, I can produce five straight
male sluts. Or five straight female sluts. Or five gay female sluts.
Promiscuity isn't a function of your sexuality, it's a function of your personality.
B> > If the privileges of marriage are worthless, as I think you're saying,
B> > then why don't we just abolish marriage altogether?
>
M> That's my belief. The privileges are valuable, but that is just value
M> stolen from single people.
No, more so from people who live together without being married, and
from people who are in same sex relationships. Single people don't need
protection from getting screwed at the end of a relationship, there's no
financial interest unless you're living together.
> > There's a lot of good reasons why that's not the way it is.
>
> Excuses are like, err, belly buttons: everybody's got one and no-one
> wants to see yours. Well, it wasn't "belly buttons" originally...
The reasons are not excuses, they're concrete, financial protections,
which are in place so that women who never worked in a 20 year marriage
don't end up on the street and penniless at the end of the marriage, as
I outlined in my last post.
B> > If we were to extend the privileges of marriage to gay couples, it would
B> > provide them with the same financial safety net.
>
> At whose expense? Where is this value that's raining down from the
> skies? Gay marriage would just allow another bunch of snouts into an
> already crowded trough.
No, at their own expense. The financial risk of getting married is that
you may end up having to turn over 50% of everything you've acquired
during the marriage to your former spouse, in the event of a divorce.
The financial risk of homosexual marriage would be the same. It
wouldn't be a TAXPAYER expense, it would be personal.
M> I don't know where Bailey lives, but here in San Francisco, where
M> "bareback clubs" (that match up HIV- and HIV+ partners for unsafe sex)
M> are the latest rage, the pieties she's mouthing ring rather hollow.
And less than 6 months ago, in Indianapolis, they shut down a "Swinger's
Club" that catered primarily to married couples... Your point?
My point, here, is that straights are no more or less promiscuous than
gays, as a group. Prove me wrong.
B> > (since we thought AIDS was a "gay disease" in the early 80's).
>
M> As we do here in the late '90s, since female-to-male transmission is
M> quite rare, only homosexuals and needle users are really good carriers.
The fastest growing population of people with AIDS, according to Planned
Parenthood, is women. Straight women. Male to female transmission is
quite common.
M> You want to change the meaning of marriage -- fine, as I say, I'd like
M> to abolish it altogether -- but let's not pretend you're doing
M> something different or the people who want to keep the old definition
M> are monsters.
I didn't say they were, I said that their reasons were monstrous, and
largely based in stereotypes that are blatantly untrue.
B> > Keep your politics out of my bedroom.
M> THESE ARE NOT *MY* POLITICS.
M> They are the politics of perhaps 70% of the population -- if it were
M> up to me, I'd let groups of up to nine people marry.
Keep their politics out of my bedroom too. Weren't we just discussing
how a majority opinion doesn't necessarily make something right?
Bailey
Bailey Cameron
Friendly Fiend wrote:
>
> Bailey Cameron <bail...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3742C41D...@hotmail.com...
> > There's this idea leftover from the 70's that gays and lesbians are less
> > monogamous than straight people. This just is not true. If nothing
> > else, the gay people of the 90's are MORE monogamous than straights,
> > because they've had the "safer sex" and "protect yourself from AIDS"
> > messages drilled into their heads even more than straights have
>
> There's simply no evidence to support this view. There is no heterosexual
> phenomenon that equals the sexual promiscuity seen in gay bath houses.
Swingers' Clubs.
Ok, let's do something practical. Go buy a paper. How many of the
"Looking for sex and nothing else" personal ads are from straight
people, and how many are from gay people?
I know a LOT of gay men, including my brother, and NONE of them have
ever been to a gay bath house. I'm not even convinced that they exist.
> Females are naturally generally more circumspect about with whom they have
> sex. This offers a brake on the male impulse to have sex indiscrimanently.
> In a homosexual relationship the brakes are off.
I don't know what women you know, but the ones I've known are just as
slutty as men. "Naturally generally more circumspect" is just as much
of a stereotype as "all gay men are sluts". Anyone have a fact for me, please?
> > (since we thought AIDS was a "gay disease" in the early 80's).
>
> It still overwhelmingly is. See "The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS" by Michael
> Fumento.
Please see:
http://www.avert.org/
Which will show you that:
<quote>
UNAIDS estimated that in 1996, more than 10 million women worldwide had
been infected with HIV since the start of the epidemic, out of a total
of over 25 million infected adults.
Women accounted for 42% of the over 21 million adults living with HIV
(world wide).
^^^
Worldwide, the HIV risk for women is rising.
</quote>
I couldn't find a worldwide statistic for gay men, however:
While, (from http://www.avert.org/), through December of 1997, there had
been 309,247 cases of AIDS reported in gay men in the United states. TOTAL.
According to that same site, .56% of the population in North America has
HIV/AIDS. .25% of the population in Western Europe has HIV/AIDS. And
yet 8% of the population in Africa has HIV/AIDS. Are you seriously
under the impression that it's because everyone in Africa is gay?!? No,
it must be all those bathhouses.
Your prejudices are no match for my facts.
Bailey "!" Cameron
Bill Baldwin
>the lovely and talented Bill Baldwin broadcast on alt.fan.cecil-adams:
>>Institutionalized, legally protected homosexual union has never
>>been tried as the basis or part of the basis for society.
>
>Hasn't been tried by European people in the last 800 to 1000 years,
>but certainly has be tried with reasonable success by many other
>peoples and at other times.
I'm skeptical. Can you cite examples?
Bill Baldwin
>Bill Baldwin says...
>
>> Institutionalized, legally protected homosexual union has never
>> been tried as the basis or part of the basis for society.
>
It's an observation.
Edward Hahn
>Lars Eighner wrote:
>>the lovely and talented Bill Baldwin broadcast on alt.fan.cecil-adams:
>>>been tried as the basis or part of the basis for society.
>>
>>but certainly has be tried with reasonable success by many other
>>peoples and at other times.
>
>I'm skeptical. Can you cite examples?
>
Not that I'm really interested in jumping into the middle of this thread,
but...
At the Siwa Oasis in Egypt, homosexual activity has not only been tolerated,
but flourished during the last several hundred years, and really has only died
out during the last few decades where Islamic fundamentalism has become
prominent again.
While I'm not certain of whether unions were allowed, I am quite certain that
homosexuality in this part of Egypt was not only tolerated but in some part
supported by Egyptian society as a whole.
ed
----
Ed Hahn / eh...@mitre.org / +1 703 883-5988
The above statement is solely an opinion of the author, and
does not express a position or implied warranty by the MITRE
Corporation. Really.
Rowan Mayfair
> On Wed, 19 May 1999 18:47:11 -0700, Bill Baldwin <ju...@micronet.net> wrote:
> >
> >So how do we return to the stability that marriage used to have? By
> >re-stigmatizing divorce and making divorce legally much harder to get.
>
> Alternately, of course, we could just make marraige harder to
> get. Off the top of my head, this seems like a more effective
> way of doing it, though I'm sure it has a whole nest of problems
> of it's own if I actually spent some time trying to come up
> with any non-socially based enforcements...
Didn't, I want to say, Lousiana pass some sort of 'law' to this effect ? I
seem to recall hearing something about some attempt to make getting married a
longer and more deeply involved process, complete with pre-marital counseling.
Friendly Fiend
>
>
> Friendly Fiend wrote:
> >
> > Bailey Cameron <bail...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:3742C41D...@hotmail.com...
> > > There's this idea leftover from the 70's that gays and lesbians are
less
> > > monogamous than straight people. This just is not true. If nothing
> > > else, the gay people of the 90's are MORE monogamous than straights,
> > > because they've had the "safer sex" and "protect yourself from AIDS"
> > > messages drilled into their heads even more than straights have
> >
> > There's simply no evidence to support this view. There is no
heterosexual
> > phenomenon that equals the sexual promiscuity seen in gay bath houses.
>
> Swingers' Clubs.
Heterosexual swinger's clubs are not even remotely as popular among
heterosexuals as bath houses are among homosexuals.
>
> Ok, let's do something practical. Go buy a paper. How many of the
> "Looking for sex and nothing else" personal ads are from straight
> people, and how many are from gay people?
Keeping in mind that heterosexuals outnumber homosexuals something like 20
to 1 recount those ads and get back to me.
>
> I know a LOT of gay men, including my brother, and NONE of them have
> ever been to a gay bath house. I'm not even convinced that they exist.
They do.
>
> > Females are naturally generally more circumspect about with whom they
have
> > sex. This offers a brake on the male impulse to have sex
indiscrimanently.
> > In a homosexual relationship the brakes are off.
> I don't know what women you know, but the ones I've known are just as
> slutty as men. "Naturally generally more circumspect" is just as much
> of a stereotype as "all gay men are sluts". Anyone have a fact for me,
please?
If your own experience doesn't inform you that women and men generally
differ on their willingness to have promiscuous sex, I can't imagine that
anything could you persuade you otherwise
> > > (since we thought AIDS was a "gay disease" in the early 80's).
> >
> > It still overwhelmingly is. See "The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS" by
Michael
> > Fumento.
>
> Please see:
> http://www.avert.org/
This does not appear to me to be a site that provides unbiased data.
> Which will show you that:
> <quote>
> UNAIDS estimated that in 1996, more than 10 million women worldwide had
> been infected with HIV since the start of the epidemic, out of a total
> of over 25 million infected adults.
>
> Women accounted for 42% of the over 21 million adults living with HIV
> (world wide).
> ^^^
> Worldwide, the HIV risk for women is rising.
> </quote>
>
> I couldn't find a worldwide statistic for gay men, however:
>
> While, (from http://www.avert.org/), through December of 1997, there had
> been 309,247 cases of AIDS reported in gay men in the United states.
TOTAL.
>
> According to that same site, .56% of the population in North America has
> HIV/AIDS. .25% of the population in Western Europe has HIV/AIDS. And
> yet 8% of the population in Africa has HIV/AIDS. Are you seriously
> under the impression that it's because everyone in Africa is gay?!? No,
> it must be all those bathhouses.
It's true that in Africa heterosexual AIDS is far more common than in North
America.
> Your prejudices are no match for my facts.
Whether I've got my facts right or wrong you have no reason to call me
prejudiced. Just because we disagree is no call for you brand me as
prejudiced.
FF
Bailey Cameron
Bill Baldwin wrote:
>Lars Eighner wrote:
> >Hasn't been tried by European people in the last 800 to 1000 years,
> >but certainly has be tried with reasonable success by many other
> >peoples and at other times.
>
> I'm skeptical. Can you cite examples?
Although there wasn't a formal institution (like marriage), wasn't the
homosexual male relationship a common and accepted part of ancient Greek
society? I could've sworn...
Bailey "dunno" Cameron
HpstrDufuz
>tail. The economic system is the dog.
Nope. CF. "Guns, Germs, and Steel."
Friendly Fiend
Scott K. Stafford <sco...@UNSPAM.together.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.11addc032...@news.randori.com...
> In article <_4L03.321$zB1....@server1.news.adelphia.net>,
> monkeywa...@yahoo.com says...
>
> > > There's this idea leftover from the 70's that gays and lesbians are
less
> > > monogamous than straight people. This just is not true. If nothing
> > > else, the gay people of the 90's are MORE monogamous than straights,
> > > because they've had the "safer sex" and "protect yourself from AIDS"
> > > messages drilled into their heads even more than straights have
> >
> > There's simply no evidence to support this view. There is no
heterosexual
> > phenomenon that equals the sexual promiscuity seen in gay bath houses.
have
> > sex. This offers a brake on the male impulse to have sex
indiscrimanently.
> > In a homosexual relationship the brakes are off.
>
> to succeed long-term - thus everything balances out nicely overall.
I wouldn't draw that conclusion. But of the sexual pairings female-female
and male-male I think it is obvious that female-female tends to be the more
stable.
FF
Bill Baldwin
Yes, it was. As you note, though, my question is something different. The
statement to which Mr. Eigner responded was: ". Institutionalized, legally
Lars Eighner
the lovely and talented "Bill Baldwin" <ju...@micronet.net>
broadcast on alt.fan.cecil-adams:
|Lars Eighner wrote:
|>the lovely and talented Bill Baldwin broadcast on alt.fan.cecil-adams:
|>>Institutionalized, legally protected homosexual union has never
|>>been tried as the basis or part of the basis for society.
|>
|>Hasn't been tried by European people in the last 800 to 1000 years,
|>but certainly has be tried with reasonable success by many other
|>peoples and at other times.
|
|I'm skeptical. Can you cite examples?
I had no idea that this was not common knowledge.
Walter Williams' book The Spirit and the Flesh provides numerous
examples of same-sex marriages in aboriginal American cultures.
Boswell's book Same-sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe deals with such
marriages in, well, medieval Europe. Female-female marriage was a
fairly common feature of many Bantu-speaking societies of
sub-Saharan Africa. E.E. Evans-Pritchard gives detailed accounts
male-male marriage amoung the Azande, which is notable in that
both parties clearly remain socially male whereas in many
other cultures having male-male marriage one of the partners is
often socially recognized as female or other-gendered.
It is sometimes argued that the female-female marriages of the
Bantu-speaking cultures were primarily property arrangements
that should not be taken as evidence of a romantic/sexual
relationship between the parties. But that is rather the
point of my previous post: the same is true of opposite-sex
marriages in those cultures -- marriages are arranged between
clans without regard to any affection or lack of it between
the individuals involved.
Marriage was only tangental to my topic and I haven't done
a serious review of the literature in years, but the following
selected references might get anyone especially interested
in this topic started:
Allen, Paula Gunn. "Lesbians in American Indian Cultures,"
Conditions 7 (1981), pp. 67-87.
Bass-Hass, Rita. "The Lesbian Dyad," Journal of Sex Research 9
(1968), pp. 108-126.
Blackwood, Evelyn. "Sexuality and Gender in Certain
Native American Tribes: The Case of Cross-Gender
Females," Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and
Society 10 (1984), pp. 27-42.
Boswell, John. Same-Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe (1994)
Childs, Maggie. "Japan's Homosexual Heritage," Gai
Saber 1 (Spring 1977) pp. 41-45.
Colson, Elizabeth (1917- ). Marriage and Family among
the Plateau Tonga of Northern Rhodesia.
(Manchester: 1958).
D'Emilio, John & Estelle B. Freedman. Intimate Matters: A History of
Sexuality in America (1988)
Devereux, George. "Institutionalized Homosexuality of
the Mohave Indians," Human Biology
9(1937):498-527.
Dorsey, James O. "A Study of the Siouan Cults," Bureau
of American Ethnology Annual Report 11
(1889-1890): 378-467
Eskridge, William N. Jr. "A History of Same-Sex Marriage,"
79 Va. L. Rev. 1419 (1993)
Evans-Pritchard, Edward Evan (1902-1973), editor. Man
and Woman Among the Azande. (London: Faber and
Faber, 1974)
Nadel, S.F. "Two Nuba Religions: An Essay in
Comparison," American Anthropologist, v. 57, no.
4 (August 1953) pp 661-679.
I have heard there was an extensive amicus curiae in the Hawai'i
case with loads of historical and cultural information on this
topic, but I haven't been able to locate it.
--
Lars Eighner 700 Hearn #101 Austin TX 78703 eig...@io.com
(512) 474-1920 (FAX answers 6th ring) http://www.io.com/%7Eeighner/
Please visit my web bookstore: http://www.io.com/%7Eeighner/bookstore/
* "Hey, I'm not a lot of people." --Red Green
Dr H
On Thu, 20 May 1999, David Lentz wrote:
[snip, dictionary definition of 'bigot'...]
}
}I offer a quote:
}
} We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are
}created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with
}certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty,
}and the Pursuit of Happiness- That to secure these Rights,
}Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers
}from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of
}Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of
}the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new
}Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and
}organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most
}likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
}
}I would describe the quote as strongly held statement of
}political conviction, and it seems that the author was quite
}unwilling to tolerant a dissenting view. A strongly held
}political view. So do we declare Thomas Jefferson a bigot?
In view of the fact that his statement specifically and exclusively
refers only to "Men," and makes no mention whatsoever of women, I'd
have to say yes. ;->
Dr H
Dr H
On Thu, 20 May 1999, Bailey Cameron wrote:
}Keep their politics out of my bedroom too. Weren't we just discussing
}how a majority opinion doesn't necessarily make something right?
It doesn't make something right, but it often makes it very, very
powerful.
Dr H
"Give me anarchy, or I'll take it myself."
Dr H
On Wed, 19 May 1999, Scott K. Stafford wrote:
}chi...@evansville.net writes...
}
}> >For instance, necrophilia and coprophagia; who is "harmed" if someone
}> >digs up a corpse, has sex with it, then cooks and consumes the object of
}> >his desires?
}>
}>
}> I'd just like to interrupt this thread to point out that "coprophagia"
}> means "eating shit" not eating a corpse, as Scott's post seems to
}> imply.
}
}Oops. Anthropophagy.
Maybe 'necroanthrophagy'? After all, an anthrophagist -could- be
eating someone who's still alive. :-)
Dr H
Bill Baldwin
>|I'm skeptical. Can you cite examples?
>
>I had no idea that this was not common knowledge.
Zowie! I'm no longer skeptical. Thanks.
Dr H
On Thu, 20 May 1999, Bailey Cameron wrote:
}According to that same site, .56% of the population in North America has
}HIV/AIDS. .25% of the population in Western Europe has HIV/AIDS. And
}yet 8% of the population in Africa has HIV/AIDS. Are you seriously
}under the impression that it's because everyone in Africa is gay?!?
Not all of them, just somewhere around 8% of them... ;-)
Dr H
Timothy A. McDaniel
>><[Bill] snip buttload of citations and fascinating details>
Um, will I be labelled a sniggering dolt if I nominate that for "Worst
PHrasing of the Month"?
--
*** NEW PERSONAL ADDRESS ***
Tim McDaniel is tm...@jump.net; if that fail,
tm...@austin.ibm.com and tm...@us.ibm.com are my work accounts.
tm...@crl.com is old and will go away.
Lars Eighner
|Lars Eighner wrote:
|>|I'm skeptical. Can you cite examples?
|>
|>I had no idea that this was not common knowledge.
|><snip buttload of citations and fascinating details>
|
|Zowie! I'm no longer skeptical. Thanks.
Of course the question was malformed and I only just realized it.
The claim was something like: no society ever had a significant
basis in homosexual marriage.
Of course that is true. The societies I mentioned had only one
institution: marriage. The whole point is that they did not have
a special category "homosexual marriage." So, in a sense it is
true that no society has a significant basis in "homosexual
marriage," they just had marriage in which the partners could
be of the same sex or of opposite sexes. It is a kind of
catch-22. If a society had (as many did) some special institution
for same-sex relations, then the claim would be "that's not really
marriage." If same-sex marriages are socially exactly like
opposite-sex marriages, then they cannot be some special
basis for society. There is a kind of tautology built into
the statement with the hidden assumption that all cultures
will perceive same-sex marriages as some different flavor of
marriage.
If you ask some person in a hypothetical culture that includes
same-sex marriages on a par with opposite-sex marriages
"Do you know of any unusual marriages?" you might get the
answer: "Oh yeah. Someone from the Wolf clan married someone
from the Spider clan. That hardly ever happens." "But," you
say, "isn't the couple that lives nextdoor to you composed
of two women?" "Yes," says your informant, "but one of them
is from the Antelope clan and the other is from the Snakes.
That's a very common sort of marriage."
In other words, just because Europeans from about the 13th
century on get all disturbed about same-sex relationships
doesn't mean that everyone else has the same reaction. The
world is a very big place.
--
Lars Eighner 700 Hearn #101 Austin TX 78703 eig...@io.com
(512) 474-1920 (FAX answers 6th ring) http://www.io.com/%7Eeighner/
Please visit my web bookstore: http://www.io.com/%7Eeighner/bookstore/
* Extra sarcasm available at no extra cost.
Lars Eighner
the lovely and talented koen...@nowhere.net (Mike Koenecke)
broadcast on alt.fan.cecil-adams:
|On or about Thu, 20 May 1999 16:09:37 -0500, eig...@io.com (Lars
|Eighner) allegedly wrote:
|
|>Marriage was only tangental to my topic and I haven't done
|[major, major snip]
|>topic, but I haven't been able to locate it.
|
|definition of a "serious review" would look like.
Kids today! When I was a student there wasn't any Lycos or AltaVista.
We had to trudge ten miles to the University of Texas library in
the snow and it was uphill both ways. We had to fill out call slips
in duplicate and wait for some grad student to go into the stacks,
smoke a joint, and meander back with our dusty tomes. We didn't
have Xerox in those days. We had to copy down citations by hand --
by hand I tell you! You kids don't know how lucky you are! And
I'll tell you another damn thing: in my day a citation was a citation.
It wasn't something you read in a Newsweek article. You clawed it
out of unindexed journals, out of books that you had to have a
letter opener to separate the pages -- some of which were so old they
were not even catalogued.
Has anyone seen my teeth? Or if you know where I left my glasses
I could probably find my teeth myself.
--
Lars Eighner 700 Hearn #101 Austin TX 78703 eig...@io.com
(512) 474-1920 (FAX answers 6th ring) http://www.io.com/%7Eeighner/
Please visit my web bookstore: http://www.io.com/%7Eeighner/bookstore/
* Viagra? Hell, a 747 can keep you up for 14 hours.
Bill Baldwin
>Bill Baldwin wrote:
>>Lars Eighner wrote:
>>>examples?
>>><[Bill] snip buttload of citations and fascinating details>
>
>Um, will I be labelled a sniggering dolt if I nominate that for "Worst
>PHrasing of the Month"?
Heehee. Let's crosspost this to the group that had the guy getting on
Bailey's case for "anal."
David Lentz
Good point!
Let revoke the Declaration of Independence. Put the Queen's
picture on the currency, and all become subjects.
God Save the Queen.
David
Bill Baldwin
>Of course the question was malformed and I only just realized it.
>The claim was something like: no society ever had a significant
>basis in homosexual marriage.
Nope. That wasn't the claim. Here it is, making its third and final
appearance, this time with CAPITAL LETTERS. Ladies and gentlemen, put your
hands together for ... Bill's statement. <Crowd goes wild>:
Institutionalized, legally protected homosexual union has never been tried
as the basis or PART OF THE BASIS for society.
Your citations were quite to the point.
Carl Fink
<sco...@UNSPAM.together.net> wrote:
>Now I get to experience some crowophagy...
Surely you mean corvinophagy?
--
Carl Fink ca...@dm.net
"This fool wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy."
-Martin Luther on Copernicus' theory that the Earth orbits the sun
Mike Koenecke
Eighner) allegedly wrote:
>Marriage was only tangental to my topic and I haven't done
>a serious review of the literature in years...
[major, major snip]
>topic, but I haven't been able to locate it.
Good Lord. With that bibliography, I'd hate to see what your
definition of a "serious review" would look like.
---
Mike Koenecke
to reply, change "nowhere" to "cyberramp"
Anton Sherwood
Thanks.
: mlo...@lobo.civetsystems.com wrote: [...]
: > The drug-use thing is apparently that people will become less
: > productive if they take drugs. Since drugs laws clearly make this
: > problem *worse* rather than better, I just don't get the logic.
Tanja <row...@innocent.com> writes
: Apparently though 'society' doesn't appear to agree. If it was clear
: to 'society' that drug laws are making the problem *worse* instead of
: better why is there such strong resistance to getting rid of these
: problematic drug laws ? [...]
Resistance on whose part? Medical marijuana has been approved by the
voters wherever they've been asked recently (nine states), in one case
explicitly over the objection of the legislature. (In Arizona apparently
the legislature can negate a popular initiative, but the people may
then override the veto.) Any honest person recognizes that medical
MJ will make it at least marginally easier to use MJ for fun, but
the voters don't seem to think that's too big a price.
The drug war, like any war, is great for the government racket.
The taxpayers are beginning to see that it's not so great for
society in general.
--
"How'd ya like to climb this high WITHOUT no mountain?" --Porky Pine 70.6.19
Anton Sherwood *\\* +1 415 267 0685 *\\* http://www.jps.net/antons/
Mike Koenecke
Eighner) allegedly wrote:
>In our last episode <377742F02EE924B1.EB2036C0...@library-proxy.airnews.net>,
>the lovely and talented koen...@nowhere.net (Mike Koenecke)
>broadcast on alt.fan.cecil-adams:
>|On or about Thu, 20 May 1999 16:09:37 -0500, eig...@io.com (Lars
>|Eighner) allegedly wrote:
>|
>|>Marriage was only tangental to my topic and I haven't done
>|>a serious review of the literature in years...
>|[major, major snip]
>|>topic, but I haven't been able to locate it.
>|
>|Good Lord. With that bibliography, I'd hate to see what your
>|definition of a "serious review" would look like.
>
>
>Kids today! When I was a student there wasn't any Lycos or AltaVista.
>We had to trudge ten miles to the University of Texas library in
>the snow and it was uphill both ways. We had to fill out call slips
>in duplicate and wait for some grad student to go into the stacks,
>smoke a joint, and meander back with our dusty tomes. We didn't
>have Xerox in those days. We had to copy down citations by hand --
>by hand I tell you! You kids don't know how lucky you are! And
>I'll tell you another damn thing: in my day a citation was a citation.
>It wasn't something you read in a Newsweek article. You clawed it
>out of unindexed journals, out of books that you had to have a
>letter opener to separate the pages -- some of which were so old they
>were not even catalogued.
>
>Has anyone seen my teeth? Or if you know where I left my glasses
>I could probably find my teeth myself.
Hook 'em Horns, Lars!
(UT Law, Class of '84)
Rowan Mayfair
> Tanja, can you set your margin-wrap to 78 or less rather than 99?
> Thanks.
If you can tell me how, I'll be glad to do it, no thanks necessary; it irritates
me too. I have it set under preferences (I use Netscape) to wrap outgoing,
plain text, messages at 72 characters. I have not been able to find any
specific setting under preferences for margins.
> : mlo...@lobo.civetsystems.com wrote: [...]
> : > The drug-use thing is apparently that people will become less
> : > productive if they take drugs. Since drugs laws clearly make this
> : > problem *worse* rather than better, I just don't get the logic.
>
> Tanja <row...@innocent.com> writes
> : Apparently though 'society' doesn't appear to agree. If it was clear
> : to 'society' that drug laws are making the problem *worse* instead of
> : better why is there such strong resistance to getting rid of these
> : problematic drug laws ? [...]
>
> Resistance on whose part? Medical marijuana has been approved by the
> voters wherever they've been asked recently (nine states), in one case
> explicitly over the objection of the legislature.
Yes, but that is just "medical usage of marijuana" and approved by voters or
not, it's still very much resisted. IIRC, in California (one of the states that
approved this usage) they were still arresting doctors who prescribe marijuana
for medicinal purposes after legalization.
> (In Arizona apparently
> the legislature can negate a popular initiative, but the people may
> then override the veto.) Any honest person recognizes that medical
> MJ will make it at least marginally easier to use MJ for fun, but
> the voters don't seem to think that's too big a price.
>
> The drug war, like any war, is great for the government racket.
> The taxpayers are beginning to see that it's not so great for
> society in general.
Are they really though ? There hasn't been any approval by the voters of
abolishing any of the drug laws, save for that *very* small exception of medical
marijuana.
You certainly don't have to argue to convince me of this, I agree with you.
That's why I used quote marks around 'society', I was hoping this would show
that I don't share the same views. I am very much for the legalization of
marijuana without having to stipulate 'for medical use'. While I am less
enthused about the legalization of the rest of the illegal drugs, I admit that
the drug 'war' doesn't appear to be solving anything. I am not sure stringent
regulation and heavy taxation will either, but I am willing to keep an open mind
about it.
Bailey Cameron
Friendly Fiend wrote:
> > Your prejudices are no match for my facts.
>
> Whether I've got my facts right or wrong you have no reason to call me
> prejudiced. Just because we disagree is no call for you brand me as
> prejudiced.
Oh I'm so sorry. But in order for me to believe that these aren't just
(prejudiced) stereotypes, you're going to have to come up with some
facts. (Including proof that my cite was biased...). Until then I will
believe that 1) thinking all gay men are promiscuous, 2) thinking all
straight women are prudes, and 3) thinking that all men want sex all the
time are PREJUDICES, by definition.
Bailey "straight, female, and promiscuous" Cameron
*wink*
mlo...@lobo.civetsystems.com
> Bailey Cameron <bail...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:37443707...@hotmail.com...
> >
> >
> > Friendly Fiend wrote:
> > > There's simply no evidence to support this view. There is no
> heterosexual
> > > phenomenon that equals the sexual promiscuity seen in gay bath houses.
> >
> > Swingers' Clubs.
>
> Heterosexual swinger's clubs are not even remotely as popular among
> heterosexuals as bath houses are among homosexuals.
And swinger's clubs are not politically protected the way bath houses
are. At least here in San Francisco, the bath houses represent some
sort of litmus test on whether you are pro-gay and pro-freedom.
> > I know a LOT of gay men, including my brother, and NONE of them have
> > ever been to a gay bath house. I'm not even convinced that they exist.
What do you want, an address? There's that nice one across from the
Safeway on Church Street, has some sort of appropriate name like
"Erotica". Not that I've been inside. Not that there's anything
wrong with going inside. (Actually, the price list is on the door.
Boys between 18 and 25 years get in for free; over that, it's like
twenty bucks.
> > I don't know what women you know, but the ones I've known are just as
> > slutty as men. "Naturally generally more circumspect" is just as much
> > of a stereotype as "all gay men are sluts". Anyone have a fact for me,
> please?
>
> If your own experience doesn't inform you that women and men generally
> differ on their willingness to have promiscuous sex, I can't imagine that
> anything could you persuade you otherwise
I have a suggestion. Put Bailey and Friendly in the same room. See
which is willing to agree to have sex with the other.
> > Your prejudices are no match for my facts.
>
> Whether I've got my facts right or wrong you have no reason to call me
> prejudiced. Just because we disagree is no call for you brand me as
> prejudiced.
We are back on that again, are we?
M.
mlo...@lobo.civetsystems.com
> B> > It isn't irrational? 50% of heterosexual marriages end in divorce, but
> B> > the heterosexual "union" is MORE stable than the homosexual union?
>
> M> 50% *over the course of a lifetime*. Which means the average
> M> heterosexual marriage can be expected to last longer than, say, a
> M> skyscraper.
>
> Huh??? No, 50% of the people who get married get divorced. I don't
> know how you measure divorce after death...
Well, generally a 'lifetime' ends in death.
> Even IF homosexual relationships are less stable, isn't that all the
> MORE reason to offer the same financial protection as we do to married
> straight couples to any people who set up households together, for
> whatever length of time?
Are you asking *me*? I don't thing the whole marriage thing is a good
idea?
> M> Which makes total sense to me. Heck, if I were trying to sleep with
> M> people who had a little resistance to the idea of sleep with people as
> M> I do, well, I'd be a happy guy. It has more to do with being male
> M> than any orientation. Look at Wilt Chamberlain.
>
> For every promiscuous gay male you produce, I can [..] five straight female sluts.
All right! Now I'm finally on the right NG! How do we go about
arranging this deal? Because I'm about four blocks away from Castro
Street, the promiscuous gay male capital of the universe (also, good
bookstores).
I want the address of the promiscuous straight female equivalent. I
mean, I really want it. Has nothing to do with this thread, I just
need to know. Please, Bailey, tell me you weren't being hyperbolic.
I'm begging you.
> Promiscuity isn't a function of your sexuality, it's a function of your personality.
It's not a function of your sexuality, it's a function of your sex.
Males tend to be promiscuous (or at least *try* to be promiscuous),
females don't.
> B> > If the privileges of marriage are worthless, as I think you're saying,
> B> > then why don't we just abolish marriage altogether?
> >
> M> That's my belief. The privileges are valuable, but that is just value
> M> stolen from single people.
>
> No, more so from people who live together without being married, and
> from people who are in same sex relationships.
Uh, Bailey, those *are* single people. At least, under the law.
> B> > If we were to extend the privileges of marriage to gay couples, it would
> B> > provide them with the same financial safety net.
> >
> > At whose expense? Where is this value that's raining down from the
> > skies? Gay marriage would just allow another bunch of snouts into an
> > already crowded trough.
> No, at their own expense. The financial risk of getting married is that
> you may end up having to turn over 50% of everything you've acquired
> during the marriage to your former spouse, in the event of a
> divorce.
Two gay males (or twelve) could establish a binding contract that had
the same financial effect (on each other) that a marriage contract
would -- all property held in common, liability for medical expense, &c.
It just wouldn't have the same effect on other people (taxpayers,
insurers, &c).
> M> I don't know where Bailey lives, but here in San Francisco, where
> M> "bareback clubs" (that match up HIV- and HIV+ partners for unsafe sex)
> M> are the latest rage, the pieties she's mouthing ring rather hollow.
>
> And less than 6 months ago, in Indianapolis, they shut down a "Swinger's
> Club" that catered primarily to married couples... Your point?
One club. In Indianapolis. There were hundreds of clubs in San
Francisco (with a gay population of less than 100,000) before the city
shut them down. There are still dozens, operating semi-legally.
> My point, here, is that straights are no more or less promiscuous than
> gays, as a group. Prove me wrong.
Males are more promiscuous (in intent) than females. Since
heterosexual promiscuity requires (at least) one female, it is less
often carried out than male homosexual promiscuity.
> The fastest growing population of people with AIDS, according to Planned
> Parenthood, is women. Straight women.
If there were one woman with AIDS last year and two this year, the
population would doubling, while the population of homosexual males
with AIDS is inching up.
> Male to female transmission is quite common.
Not "quite common", for technical reasons, but not uncommon either.
Female to male, as you implicitly admit, is almost unknown.
> M> You want to change the meaning of marriage -- fine, as I say, I'd like
> M> to abolish it altogether -- but let's not pretend you're doing
> M> something different or the people who want to keep the old definition
> M> are monsters.
>
> I didn't say they were, I said that their reasons were monstrous, and
> largely based in stereotypes that are blatantly untrue.
For extremely small values of "blatantly".
> Keep their politics out of my bedroom too. Weren't we just discussing
> how a majority opinion doesn't necessarily make something right?
No-one is claiming that they are right. The majority is usually
wrong. In this occasion, their reasoning, while erroneous, is not
obviously fallacious or based on prejudice or bigotry.
M.
J. Michael Looney
On 21-May-1999, mlo...@lobo.civetsystems.com wrote:
> > If your own experience doesn't inform you that women and men
> > generally
> > differ on their willingness to have promiscuous sex, I can't imagine
> > that
> > anything could you persuade you otherwise
>
> I have a suggestion. Put Bailey and Friendly in the same room. See
> which is willing to agree to have sex with the other.
You know, at this point in the history of this group I am required to
say this.....
GIF! GIF! GIF!
--
Sillyness is the last refuse of the doomed. P. Opus
http://www.spellbooksoftware.com/epic
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GAT d-- s:- a38 US++ P+ L+ E W+++ N++ K++ w++ O- M- V-- PS+ PE++ Y PGP
t++ 5 X R+++ tv+ b++++ DI+++ D G+ e+ h--- r+++ y+++(**)
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------