任何词的词义都是随时代变化的。非要把婚姻定义在异性之间,我觉得这是在咬文嚼字,表面上看不是反对同性恋婚姻,骨子里就是歧视。 因为同性婚姻实质上不仅要求同性恋者与异性恋享有同等的法律、权利、离婚以及财产继承、子女收养、教堂婚礼等等,而且希望获得全社会的接纳、认可与祝福。这与黑人希望获得与白人同等权利一样,是当今有进步意义的民权运动。
如果非要给同性恋另外一个词来定义他们的结合,这也跟种族分离一样,是毫无疑问的歧视。当年就有白人至上主义者用同样的语气来定义黑人的,你们可以去坐黑人们一起坐后排的公共汽车嘛,为什么非要跟我们白人挤同一排bus座位,为什么你非要跟我们坐一起?然而就有一个不畏惧的黑女人Rosa Parks理直气壮地不给白人让座。
当年的希特勒就是把犹太人圈在一起,把吉普赛人圈在一起,美其名曰给他们单独的地方居住,实质上就是歧视。 为什么我们今天依然要继续类似的segregation?难道我们要再成立一套司法系统来处理同性恋离婚、子女收养,另外一类教堂主办同性婚礼?另一个词汇来定义神圣的结合?
更何况婚姻几千年最主要的意义是家族的联合而不是个人的结合。婚姻在历史上就是两个不同的家族因为两个人的结合而成为亲属,这有什么疑问的吗?两个家族的财产 、儿女因为两个人的结合有了交结,这是婚姻的本质。所有真诚相爱的人都是受到上帝祝福的。
要搬咖啡里的百科全书来引经据典谈婚论嫁了。
- Re: 跟moab,老圣咬文嚼字谈婚论嫁posted on 12/01/2008
Much like Olbermann, your claim is an "affective error". I've said this before and will say it again, for the last time, you guys failed to see the subtlety. Anti-Prop 8 is NOT an "equality for all" issue. - Re: 跟moab,老圣咬文嚼字谈婚论嫁posted on 12/01/2008
我现在开始怀疑老moab是魔门教徒了:)是不是,从实招来。
这次prop 8就是在魔门教会的贿赂下通过的。他们为什么把魔门翻译成摩门呢。魔门就是魔门嘛。 - posted on 12/02/2008
好家伙, 老板娘, 你还把JULY给的那个大粗嗓子煽情的话重复地打出来了, 连希特勒都出来了. 我服了. 我本以为象老板娘,JULY这样的最能识破煽情.可是事实证明我错了.
为什么我们不能用自己眼睛看到的事实现象,而不是在空想空谈, 再用一点common sense来看看对同性恋的歧视和对黑人的歧视倒底一样不一样? 你在哪里看到过汽车飞机不让同性恋上的? 或者让他们单独坐在一起了? 在哪里又看到强迫把同性恋圈在一起了? 在这个国家,同性恋的人均收入, 别说和黑人比了, 一直都远远高于总体国民人均收入, 同性恋的受教育程度高出普通人好几倍. 在人事部门, 音乐,艺术等很多行业都是大量同性恋人就业. 我不是说同性恋没有受歧视. 但我们应该实事求是一些,不能言过其实.
回到Prop 8, 对, 问题就是双方在咬文嚼字上. 你终于明白了.只是同性恋者先开咬的. 他们要改变婚姻二字的含义. 异性恋人为什么不答应? 因为他们和我们不同,应该区别. 你把这种区别看成歧视, 你不明白区别和歧视不是一回事. 异性恋的结合和同性恋者的结合, 无论是生物学上的意义还是社会学上的意义都不一样的, 你无法掩盖这种区别. 生物学意义上说, 同性恋不是正常的, 你去问问任何生物学家, 不能自我繁殖的物种是正常的还是不正常的? 从医学角度上看, 男同性恋的做爱方式是不是正常的? 再看社会学意义, 异性恋的结合导致丈夫妻子,爷爷奶奶… 同性恋结合呢? Party A和 PartyB, grand party 和grand party B(假如他们领养孩子成家的话),根本不可能有丈夫妻子爷爷奶奶的概念. 这样两种不同意义的结合,要不要区别? 当然要. 区别是不是一种歧视? 不是. 这道理你明白吗?
玛雅 wrote:
任何词的词义都是随时代变化的。非要把婚姻定义在异性之间,我觉得这是在咬文嚼字,表面上看不是反对同性恋婚姻,骨子里就是歧视。 因为同性婚姻实质上不仅要求同性恋者与异性恋享有同等的法律、权利、离婚以及财产继承、子女收养、教堂婚礼等等,而且希望获得全社会的接纳、认可与祝福。这与黑人希望获得与白人同等权利一样,是当今有进步意义的民权运动。
- posted on 12/02/2008
st dude wrote:
好家伙, 老板娘, 你还把JULY给的那个大粗嗓子煽情的话重复地打出来了, 连希特勒都出来了. 我服了. 我本以为象老板娘,JULY这样的最能识破煽情.可是事实证明我错了.
我没看什么人的宣传,但如果有人跟我想得一样,that‘’s wonderful, same minds attract.
为什么我们不能用自己眼睛看到的事实现象,而不是在空想空谈, 再用一点common sense来看看对同性恋的歧视和对黑人的歧视倒底一样不一样?
不让他们享有异性恋夫妻有的权利以及儿童领养,不给他们发结婚证就是歧视。
生物学意义上说, 同性恋不是正常的, 你去问问任何生物学家, 不能自我繁殖的物种是正常的还是不正常的?
实际上,生物学家早就证明了,各类动物中存在大量的同性恋性行为,而且植物还能变性呢。人的全部身体都是性感地带,谁规定哪个部位不能做爱了?您更无知的是,性科学家发现很多女性比男性更喜欢肛交。
不能繁殖的物种?人类大概还不必担心不能繁殖吧。更何况现在可以人工受精自我克隆呢。
从医学角度上看, 男同性恋的做爱方式是不是正常的? 再看社会学意义, 异性恋的结合导致丈夫妻子,爷爷奶奶… 同性恋结合呢? Party A和 PartyB, grand party 和grand party B(假如他们领养孩子成家的话),根本不可能有丈夫妻子爷爷奶奶的概念. 这样两种不同意义的结合,要不要区别? 当然要. 区别是不是一种歧视? 不是. 这道理你明白吗?
再一次,您的医学知识让我震惊,您倒男女有别哈,男同性做爱不正常,哦,那女同性恋正常了?谁规定的?因为您看着顺眼?同性恋之间称谓很容易解决,特别在美国,大家都平等,谁也别想当谁的爷爷,都是Joe。
玛雅 wrote:
任何词的词义都是随时代变化的。非要把婚姻定义在异性之间,我觉得这是在咬文嚼字,表面上看不是反对同性恋婚姻,骨子里就是歧视。 因为同性婚姻实质上不仅要求同性恋者与异性恋享有同等的法律、权利、离婚以及财产继承、子女收养、教堂婚礼等等,而且希望获得全社会的接纳、认可与祝福。这与黑人希望获得与白人同等权利一样,是当今有进步意义的民权运动。
- posted on 12/02/2008
[>st dude wrote:.....生物学意义上说, 同性恋不是正常的, 你去问问任何生物学家, ...]
Afred Kinsey happened to be a 生物学家 (a zoologist who studied wasps at first) and his pioneer work on sexuality including homosexuality indicates it's incorrect to say "同性恋不是正常的".
http://www.kinseyinstitute.org/resources/FAQ.html#homosexuality
http://www.kinseyinstitute.org/resources/ak-hhscale.html
http://www.apa.org/topics/sorientation.html#whatis
[>>玛雅 wrote: ...如果非要给同性恋另外一个词来定义他们的结合,这也跟种族分离一样,是毫无疑问的歧视。当年就有白人至上主义者用同样的语气来定义黑人的,你们可以去坐黑人们一起坐后排的公共汽车吗,为什么非要跟我们白人挤同一排bus座位,为什么你非要跟我们坐一起?然而就有一个不畏惧的黑女人Rosa Parks理直气壮地不给白人让座。]
This is so well said! Today gays and lesbians fighting for their equal treatment is the new wave of civil rights movement.
ZT: Marriage vs. Civil Unions
What is marriage?
Marriage is a unique legal status conferred by and recognized by governments all over the world. It brings with it a host of reciprocal obligations, rights and protections. It is also a cultural institution. No other word has that power and no other status can provide that protection.
Married couples have over 1,400 rights, protections and responsibilities such as:
Social Security benefits upon death, disability or retirement of spouse, as well as benefits for minor children.
Family and Medical Leave protections to care for a new child or a sick or injured family member
Workers' Compensation protections for the family of a worker injured on the job
Access to COBRA insurance benefits so the family doesn't lose health insurance when one spouse is laid off
ERISA (Employee Retirement Income Security Act) protections such as the ability to leave a pension, other than Social Security, to your spouse
Exemptions from penalties on IRA and pension rollovers
Exemptions from estate taxes when a spouse dies
Exemptions from federal income taxes on spouse's health insurance
The right to visit a sick or injured loved one, have a say in life and death matters during hospitalization.
What is a civil union?
A civil union is a legal status granted by a state. The State of Vermont created civil unions in 2000. It provides legal protection to couples at the state law level, but omits federal protections, as well as the dignity, clarity, security and power of the word "marriage".
Civil unions are different from civil marriage and that difference has wide-ranging implications that make the two institutions unequal, such as:
Portability:
Marriages are respected state to state for all purposes but questions remain as to how civil unions will be treated in other states. The two appellate courts that have addressed the issue in Connecticut and Georgia have disregarded them based on the fact that their own states do not grant civil unions.
Federal Benefits:
According to a 1997 General Accounting Office report, civil marriage brings with it at least 1,049 legal protections and responsibilities from the federal government alone. Civil unions bring none of these critical legal protections.
Taxes and Public Benefits for the Family:
Because the federal government does not respect civil unions, a couple with a civil union will be in a kind of limbo with regard to governmental functions performed by both state and federal governments, such as taxation, pension protections, provision of insurance for families, and means-tested programs like Medicaid. Even when states try to provide legal protections, they may be foreclosed from doing so in joint federal/state programs.
Filling Out Forms:
Every day we fill out forms that ask us whether we are married, single, divorced or widowed. People joined in a civil union do not fit in any of those categories. People with civil unions should be able to identify themselves as a single family unit yet misrepresenting oneself on official documents can be considered fraud and can carry potential serious criminal penalties.
Separate and Unequal—Second Class Status:
Even if there were no substantive differences in the way the law treated marriages and civil unions, the fact that a civil union remains a separate status only for gay people represents real and powerful inequality. The United States Constitution requires legal equality for all. Including lesbian and gay couples within existing marriage laws in is the fairest and simplest thing to do.
Ending a Civil Union:
If you are married, you can get divorced in any state in which you are a resident. But if states continue to disregard civil unions, there is no way to end the relationship other than establishing residency in Vermont and filing for dissolution there. This has already created problems for couples who now have no way to terminate their legal agreement.
http://www.now.org/issues/marriage/marriage_unions.html
- Re: To homophobiasposted on 12/02/2008
maya:
肤色黑白黄,人种亚非欧,都是基因决定的。
同性恋不是。
如果科学证明同性恋是基因决定的因素,那么我完全赞成修改宪法。
现在的情况是,好心的人们在考虑如何给同性恋以更多的认可、接纳,但是同性恋们却得寸进尺。
反过来,同性恋如果如此反感世俗的婚姻,又为什么非要婚姻不可呢?
- posted on 12/02/2008
Joey wrote:
maya:
肤色黑白黄,人种亚非欧,都是基因决定的。
同性恋不是。
你在哪里看到这个研究说是不是?动物界存在的大量同性恋现在你怎么解释?
如果科学证明同性恋是基因决定的因素,那么我完全赞成修改宪法。
现在的情况是,好心的人们在考虑如何给同性恋以更多的认可、接纳,但是同性恋们却得寸进尺。
怎么叫得寸进尺?他们要求堂堂正正地结婚,为什么不给他们同样的权利?
反过来,同性恋如果如此反感世俗的婚姻,又为什么非要婚姻不可呢?
他们反感世俗的婚姻?怎么反感了?只要是真心相爱,神一定会祝福的。
- Re: To homophobiasposted on 12/02/2008
区别之一,动物界还有大量同类相食现象,以动物推导人未必正确。
区别之二,动物安于自己的外形,人类的同志则往往把自己打扮成异性,或者心理定位为异性。
衍生问题:我是双性恋。我爱的两个人也都是双性恋,我们三个人彼此互相爱慕,希望组成一个家庭。应该怎么办呢? - Re: To homophobiasposted on 12/02/2008
衍生问题:我是双性恋。我爱的两个人也都是双性恋,我们三个人彼此互相爱慕,希望组成一个家庭。应该怎么办呢?
那就三个人一起结婚呗,不然又要说被歧视了。
玛雅也不要给 prop 8 支持者另外一个词来定义他们的选择,说他们是 homophobes。这是毫无疑问的歧视。
歧视这个词是不是近年来被滥用了? - posted on 12/02/2008
肤色黑白黄,人种亚非欧,都是基因决定的。
同性恋不是。
如果科学证明同性恋是基因决定的因素,那么我完全赞成修改宪法。
现代文明反对基于基因的歧视,比如种族,性别,也反对基于非基因的歧视,比如宗教信仰。即使能证明同性恋没有基因或生理的原因,性取向也不该成为歧视的原因,不是吗?
现在的情况是,好心的人们在考虑如何给同性恋以更多的认可、接纳,但是同性恋们却得寸进尺。
反过来,同性恋如果如此反感世俗的婚姻,又为什么非要婚姻不可呢?
没觉得同性恋“反感世俗的婚姻“。 - posted on 12/02/2008
st dude wrote:
生物学意义上说, 同性恋不是正常的, 你去问问任何生物学家, 不能自我繁殖的物种是正常的还是不正常的? 从医学角度上看, 男同性恋的做爱方式是不是正常的?
同性恋的起因生物学上尚无定论。在生物的意义上存在既正常,人属于生物,你倒是说说这“不正常的”的生物行为最初是谁教的,莫非真是上帝给的喽?:)再说做爱与繁衍的关系,问st dude两个问题哈,don't take it personal, as always,你和太太做爱是不是从来不避孕?是不是从来都直奔主题?如果两个问题你都回答是,嘿嘿,you're a rare dude (or a good catholic, no offense),and anything you say about gay is forgiven :)若有一个问题回答否,那你做爱的目的与结果和同性恋们有本质的区别嘛?
Joey wrote:
衍生问题:我是双性恋。我爱的两个人也都是双性恋,我们三个人彼此互相爱慕,希望组成一个家庭。应该怎么办呢?
重婚与同性恋婚姻无关,现在美国的婚姻你一样可以想同两个异性结婚而被定为重婚。That needs a separate law,一样一样来嘛,急什么:) - posted on 12/02/2008
阿姗 wrote:
joey wrote:那就三个人一起结婚呗,不然又要说被歧视了。
衍生问题:我是双性恋。我爱的两个人也都是双性恋,我们三个人彼此互相爱慕,希望组成一个家庭。应该怎么办呢?
原来同事Shehla的弟弟就有这么一个三口之家。第一次带女朋友和男朋友回家过passover,父母还真是很难接受。我还另外认识一个四口之家M1-F1;M2-F2;F1-M2,前面两对是法定婚姻,后面一对事实,同住一屋檐下,empty nesters.
prop8有关的movement争取的是法定婚姻的权利,事实婚姻又是另外一回事。变法是一件不简单的事。法定婚姻是政治、文明、宗教、道义的产物,事实婚姻是原生态发展的产物,两者既有对立也有统一。 - Re: To homophobiasposted on 12/03/2008
gz wrote:
现代文明反对基于基因的歧视,比如种族,性别,也反对基于非基因的歧视,比如宗教信仰。即使能证明同性恋没有基因或生理的原因,性取向也不该成为歧视的原因,不是吗?
唔,倒也是。我再认真想想。
但是这似乎动摇了人自身定义的根基。什么是父亲,什么是母亲?连这都成为问题。问题太多了…… - Re: To homophobiasposted on 12/03/2008
我根本没有煽情,每一句话都是理智。 - posted on 12/03/2008
标题都换了, 口气越来越大了, 看样子真要跟我拼个我死你活了.
切记我们在争论什么, 各自的立场观点是什么, 分歧在哪里? 这样让我死也死个明白. 本来我对同性恋话题根本不感兴趣, 感觉很别扭(也许这里有人和我一样). 之所以插一脚, 完全是因为关于prop 8,看了有些发言后, 觉得有误导. 其实我个人觉得moab把观点说的很清楚了. 反正我一看就懂了. 关键的问题就是在婚姻这个名称上. 否则我个人的看法和elton john一样, 如果名称不是婚姻的话, prop 8也就不会通过了. 我们的分歧就在这里(其他的分歧也许有, 不在我感兴趣的范围内). 在这一点分歧上, 我认为并且支持婚姻保留给异性恋, 同性恋选择其它名字. 而你主张名称共享. 你对我的反驳是, 表面上如何如何…骨子里是歧视,并把歧视和黑人的歧视相比较. 而我, 1,说你是混淆区别与歧视,把他们等同了. 2, 给出区别的理由. 再一轮, 你反驳我给出区别的理由, 虽然只字不再提那种歧视,却给了另一顶大帽子, homophobias.
所以, 我们的分歧就是名称上作出区别是否就是歧视和之所以名称区别的理由. 其中关键是, 如果大家都想通了名称区别根本不是歧视, 那么剩下的,别人不愿意和你使用相同的名称就不重要了.先澄清这些.
回答浮生的问题.
浮生 wrote:
同性恋的起因生物学上尚无定论。在生物的意义上存在既正常,人属于生物,你倒是说说这“不正常的”的生物行为最初是谁教的,莫非真是上帝给的喽?:)
我想我们理解的有一样的地方, 只是术语的表达不一样. 任何生物存在都是天然的(natural). 不正常并非不天然. 正常和不正常的生物都是天然的.可能这是让人confused的地方. 我们记得81有一次说的非常好,可惜记不住原话,大概意思: 正常与不正常都是这个世界存在的一部分. 人长六个指头, 从生物学角度看, 就不正常, 但是天然的. 新生儿童的细胞中的染色体数比正常人多了一条,就不正常.结果一检查是唐氏综合症. 同样, 生物把自己的遗传性状相对稳定地传给后代的特性(这和他想不想传无关, 这里说的是生物能力和状态)就是正常, 否则就是不正常. 我想你我的区别是, 我愿意贴标签分得清清楚楚, 你不愿意这样做. 同时记住, 在生物学(科学)意义上, 正常和不正常都是中性词汇,没有贬义和褒义之分.
再说做爱与繁衍的关系,问st dude两个问题哈,don't take it personal, as always,你和太太做爱是不是从来不避孕?是不是从来都直奔主题?如果两个问题你都回答是,嘿嘿,you're a rare dude (or a good catholic, no offense),and anything you say about gay is forgiven :)若有一个问题回答否,那你做爱的目的与结果和同性恋们有本质的区别嘛?
欲望,情感满足等很多目的上都是一样的, 所以我根本不反对同性恋结合. 所以我对你的回答都是不是. 但是, 不能掩盖有区别的地方.别说目的, 就连做爱的主要方式上也不同. 最主要的区别是一个阴阳之交,另一个不是.
回应sands
sands wrote:
Afred Kinsey happened to be a 生物学家 (a zoologist who studied wasps at first) and his pioneer work on sexuality including homosexuality indicates it's incorrect to say "同性恋不是正常的".
Kinsey的同性恋研究不是从生物学角度出发. 这就象牛顿是物理学家, 你不能把他的神学研究当作物理研究一样. 更重要的是, Kinsey的数据是60多年前的数据,新的数据,在统计方法和采样上(而且时代不同,人们回答问题更直率)都比他的好. 结果是差距很大. 你给的所谓正常的结论的链接是心理学会的, 不是生物学会. 从十九世纪以来, 同性恋的研究一直是精神心理领域的研究, 因为被认为是精神病的一种. 一直找不出来任何原因, 在同性恋的要求下, 心理学会取消了同性恋是精神病的结论. 你没有证据当然不能说同性恋人精神不正常了. 这是他们从心理学角度说同性恋是正常的原因. 也正因为心理研究一直没有结果, 人们才开始从生物学角度研究.
玛雅 wrote:
- posted on 12/03/2008
To insist calling gay marriage something else is the same as banning marriage among Asians or Blacks, but letting them call it something else too. How would you feel about that? If you want to invoke "tradition" to ban gay marriage, then traditionally interracial marriage is banned in many states of this country, do you want to set the clock back to half a century ago?
Words carry implicit biases. Groups promote different tropes to advance their own agendas. You should go no further than examining racists calling segregation "separate but equal." That "neutral" phrase became the battle-cry call for the civil rights movement. Discrimination can't hide behind neutral sounding words.
As for current state of research on the biology of homosexuality, just go to wiki and search "biology and sexual orientation," you'd stop insisting that homosexuality is a choice.
st dude wrote:
标题都换了, 口气越来越大了, 看样子真要跟我拼个我死你活了.
切记我们在争论什么, 各自的立场观点是什么, 分歧在哪里? 这样让我死也死个明白. 本来我对同性恋话题根本不感兴趣, 感觉很别扭(也许这里有人和我一样). 之所以插一脚, 完全是因为关于prop 8,看了有些发言后, 觉得有误导. 其实我个人觉得moab把观点说的很清楚了. 反正我一看就懂了. 关键的问题就是在婚姻这个名称上. 否则我个人的看法和elton john一样, 如果名称不是婚姻的话, prop 8也就不会通过了. 我们的分歧就在这里(其他的分歧也许有, 不在我感兴趣的范围内). 在这一点分歧上, 我认为并且支持婚姻保留给异性恋, 同性恋选择其它名字. 而你主张名称共享. 你对我的反驳是, 表面上如何如何…骨子里是歧视,并把歧视和黑人的歧视相比较. 而我, 1,说你是混淆区别与歧视,把他们等同了. 2, 给出区别的理由. 再一轮, 你反驳我给出区别的理由, 虽然只字不再提那种歧视,却给了另一顶大帽子, homophobias.
所以, 我们的分歧就是名称上作出区别是否就是歧视和之所以名称区别的理由. 其中关键是, 如果大家都想通了名称区别根本不是歧视, 那么剩下的,别人不愿意和你使用相同的名称就不重要了.先澄清这些.
回答浮生的问题.
浮生 wrote:我想我们理解的有一样的地方, 只是术语的表达不一样. 任何生物存在都是天然的(natural). 不正常并非不天然. 正常和不正常的生物都是天然的.可能这是让人confused的地方. 我们记得81有一次说的非常好,可惜记不住原话,大概意思: 正常与不正常都是这个世界存在的一部分. 人长六个指头, 从生物学角度看, 就不正常, 但是天然的. 新生儿童的细胞中的染色体数比正常人多了一条,就不正常.结果一检查是唐氏综合症. 同样, 生物把自己的遗传性状相对稳定地传给后代的特性(这和他想不想传无关, 这里说的是生物能力和状态)就是正常, 否则就是不正常. 我想你我的区别是, 我愿意贴标签分得清清楚楚, 你不愿意这样做. 同时记住, 在生物学(科学)意义上, 正常和不正常都是中性词汇,没有贬义和褒义之分.
同性恋的起因生物学上尚无定论。在生物的意义上存在既正常,人属于生物,你倒是说说这“不正常的”的生物行为最初是谁教的,莫非真是上帝给的喽?:)
再说做爱与繁衍的关系,问st dude两个问题哈,don't take it personal, as always,你和太太做爱是不是从来不避孕?是不是从来都直奔主题?如果两个问题你都回答是,嘿嘿,you're a rare dude (or a good catholic, no offense),and anything you say about gay is forgiven :)若有一个问题回答否,那你做爱的目的与结果和同性恋们有本质的区别嘛?欲望,情感满足等很多目的上都是一样的, 所以我根本不反对同性恋结合. 所以我对你的回答都是不是. 但是, 不能掩盖有区别的地方.别说目的, 就连做爱的主要方式上也不同. 最主要的区别是一个阴阳之交,另一个不是.
回应sands
sands wrote:Kinsey的同性恋研究不是从生物学角度出发. 这就象牛顿是物理学家, 你不能把他的神学研究当作物理研究一样. 更重要的是, Kinsey的数据是60多年前的数据,新的数据,在统计方法和采样上(而且时代不同,人们回答问题更直率)都比他的好. 结果是差距很大. 你给的所谓正常的结论的链接是心理学会的, 不是生物学会. 从十九世纪以来, 同性恋的研究一直是精神心理领域的研究, 因为被认为是精神病的一种. 一直找不出来任何原因, 在同性恋的要求下, 心理学会取消了同性恋是精神病的结论. 你没有证据当然不能说同性恋人精神不正常了. 这是他们从心理学角度说同性恋是正常的原因. 也正因为心理研究一直没有结果, 人们才开始从生物学角度研究.
Afred Kinsey happened to be a 生物学家 (a zoologist who studied wasps at first) and his pioneer work on sexuality including homosexuality indicates it's incorrect to say "同性恋不是正常的".
玛雅 wrote:
- posted on 12/04/2008
哈哈,为了咖啡的长治久安,无奈之下不得不迎接老圣的挑战,老圣,披挂好了吗?马喂饱了没?方阵排好了吗?
切记我们在争论什么, 各自的立场观点是什么, 分歧在哪里? 这样让我死也死个明白.
老圣不用死,死什么死,给玛姐作顿圣诞大餐,我就什么立场都没了,东西南北都分不清了。
>我认为并且支持婚姻保留给异性恋, 同性恋选择其它名字. 而你主张名称共享. 你对我的反驳是, 表面上如何如何…骨子里是歧视,并把歧视和黑人的歧视相比较. 而我, 1,说你是混淆区别与歧视,把他们等同了.
请问您要如何区别?什么名词给他们?他们享受儿女领养,去同一个教堂结婚,并且权利义务与异性恋一样?
给出区别的理由. 再一轮, 你反驳我给出区别的理由, 虽然只字不再提那种歧视,却给了另一顶大帽子, homophobias.
没有指明您就是homophobia,但我这是针对那些phobia的回答。
所以, 我们的分歧就是名称上作出区别是否就是歧视和之所以名称区别的理由. 其中关键是, 如果大家都想通了名称区别根本不是歧视, 那么剩下的,别人不愿意和你使用相同的名称就不重要了.先澄清这些.
请您再给出区别名称的实际意义。为什么要有区分?法律上如何解决?注意,这是修改法律,不是简单的称谓问题。我问您法律条文如何实施处理?
我想我们理解的有一样的地方, 只是术语的表达不一样. 任何生物存在都是天然的(natural). 不正常并非不天然. 正常和不正常的生物都是天然的.可能这是让人confused的地方. 我们记得81有一次说的非常好,可惜记不住原话,大概意思: 正常与不正常都是这个世界存在的一部分. 人长六个指头, 从生物学角度看, 就不正常, 但是天然的. 新生儿童的细胞中的染色体数比正常人多了一条,就不正常.结果一检查是唐氏综合症. 同样, 生物把自己的遗传性状相对稳定地传给后代的特性(这和他想不想传无关, 这里说的是生物能力和状态)就是正常, 否则就是不正常. 我想你我的区别是, 我愿意贴标签分得清清楚楚, 你不愿意这样做. 同时记住, 在生物学(科学)意义上, 正常和不正常都是中性词汇,没有贬义和褒义之分.
法律从来没有限制六个指头的人的权利义务,也从来没有说六个指头的人不是人。按照您的逻辑,少数民族也是不正常的了,他们穿的衣服,他们的习俗也不是正常的。您如何定义正常?
再说做爱与繁衍的关系,问st dude两个问题哈,don't take it personal, as always,你和太太做爱是不是从来不避孕?是不是从来都直奔主题?如果两个问题你都回答是,嘿嘿,you're a rare dude (or a good catholic, no offense),and anything you say about gay is forgiven :)若有一个问题回答否,那你做爱的目的与结果和同性恋们有本质的区别嘛?欲望,情感满足等很多目的上都是一样的, 所以我根本不反对同性恋结合. 所以我对你的回答都是不是. 但是, 不能掩盖有区别的地方.别说目的, 就连做爱的主要方式上也不同. 最主要的区别是一个阴阳之交,另一个不是.
阴阳之交?女人都是阴的吗?男人都是阳的吗?我看不是,那些黑人女警察我看个个都是阳得恨不能被阉掉,而好多中国男人都很阴森。性别是可以改变的,而且越来越多的人希望改变。
作爱方式,我要笑倒了,您倒讲讲看,哪种体位是阴,哪种是阳?LOL 您不要逼我写色情文章。
另外,再告诉您,我们就是喜欢婚姻这个词,你看婚-姻,两个女字旁,另一边是昏了头的昏,另外个字是因缘、因果,所以就是两个女的昏了头然后就有了因果。老祖宗多有先见之明。您倒是给我说文解字看看,这两个字如何就是异性恋专用的呢?
所以您要是不想跟我们用同一个词,您可以用其他的词描述您的同居状况的。 - Re: 跟老圣血战到底-我们就是要结婚posted on 12/04/2008
哈哈,笑死我了。等着看st dude如何接招,老圣为了咖啡的繁荣请坚持住哈,这样我们无论自由保守大家就都可以有色情文章看了:) - posted on 12/04/2008
而且结婚时贴的“喜喜”字都是一模一样的双个并排“士”站在那里如两名搂肩相拥的同志,显示中国文化对同性婚姻有内在的兼容性。在西方,英文 marry 或 marriage这词,里面也躲着两个一模一样的丫头或倒立的“人”,与“喜喜”字有异曲同工之妙。所以中西方文化自古以来都是包纳同性婚姻的。
玛雅 wrote:
另外,再告诉您,我们就是喜欢婚姻这个词,你看婚-姻,两个女字旁,另一边是昏了头的昏,另外个字是因缘、因果,所以就是两个女的昏了头然后就有了因果。老祖宗多有先见之明。您倒是给我说文解字看看,这两个字如何就是异性恋专用的呢?
- posted on 12/04/2008
Please show the evidence for your assertion "....结果是差距很大".
"你给的所谓正常的结论的链接是心理学会的, 不是生物学会. " So? You know 心理学 is an interdisciplinary field, relying on many other fields such as biology, neurology, anthropology, sociology, law, etc. Pavlov is not a psychologist but that does not prevent Skinner's behaviorism from building upon his classic conditioning framework. Psychology credits Kinsey's pioneer work in sexuality research. Since you know "心理学会取消了同性恋是精神病的结论", you should also know that 心理学会 is calling everyone to make effort to eliminate prejudice and discrimination against homosexual people, right? Why do you think they are doing that (calling up for fighting against discrimination)? If you have no scientific base to indicate 同性恋's disorder, but you still think they are not normal, don't deserve to be treated the same way as heterosexuals (such as rights for marriage), then it must be the prejudice or fear or homophobia, or what else?
On the other hand, since you insist "生物学意义上说, 同性恋不是正常的, 你去问问任何生物学家...", perhaps you could name a 生物学家 who studied homosexuality scientitfically and stated indeed that 同性恋不是正常的.
Can you? Please?
st dude wrote:
回应sands
sands wrote:Kinsey的同性恋研究不是从生物学角度出发. 这就象牛顿是物理学家, 你不能把他的神学研究当作物理研究一样. 更重要的是, Kinsey的数据是60多年前的数据,新的数据,在统计方法和采样上(而且时代不同,人们回答问题更直率)都比他的好. 结果是差距很大. 你给的所谓正常的结论的链接是心理学会的, 不是生物学会. 从十九世纪以来, 同性恋的研究一直是精神心理领域的研究, 因为被认为是精神病的一种. 一直找不出来任何原因, 在同性恋的要求下, 心理学会取消了同性恋是精神病的结论. 你没有证据当然不能说同性恋人精神不正常了. 这是他们从心理学角度说同性恋是正常的原因. 也正因为心理研究一直没有结果, 人们才开始从生物学角度研究.
Afred Kinsey happened to be a 生物学家 (a zoologist who studied wasps at first) and his pioneer work on sexuality including homosexuality indicates it's incorrect to say "同性恋不是正常的".
玛雅 wrote:
- posted on 12/04/2008
人家老圣在讨论黄金成色,玛雅却坚持纸币统一,这还不容易么?民政部门连夜赶制一堆正版的红本本得了,反正全世界行情大盘看跌:)
一夫娶多妻的年代通称“结婚”,一夫一妻时兴后,以前的“结婚”就改叫“重婚”了,由此可见“结婚”一词尽管语言表述不变,其指代的对象一直在进化。所以我觉得这个词的内涵,应该立马与时俱进,都德,不如就让给他们算了,我们今后称同志联姻叫“结婚”,男女联姻叫“合婚”,人鬼联姻叫“冥婚”,人兽联姻叫“鸟婚”,老少联姻叫“八二婚”,:))
玛雅 wrote:
所以您要是不想跟我们用同一个词,您可以用其他的词描述您的同居状况的。 - Re: 跟moab,老圣咬文嚼字谈婚论嫁 同性恋者的民权运动posted on 12/04/2008
- posted on 12/05/2008
世界的潮流不就是纸币统一吗?你看看那个国家还敢金本位?开玩笑!不信问赏石 :-)
老瓦 wrote:
人家老圣在讨论黄金成色,玛雅却坚持纸币统一,这还不容易么?民政部门连夜赶制一堆正版的红本本得了,反正全世界行情大盘看跌:)
一夫娶多妻的年代通称“结婚”,一夫一妻时兴后,以前的“结婚”就改叫“重婚”了,由此可见“结婚”一词尽管语言表述不变,其指代的对象一直在进化。所以我觉得这个词的内涵,应该立马与时俱进,都德,不如就让给他们算了,我们今后称同志联姻叫“结婚”,男女联姻叫“合婚”,人鬼联姻叫“冥婚”,人兽联姻叫“鸟婚”,老少联姻叫“八二婚”,:))
玛雅 wrote:
所以您要是不想跟我们用同一个词,您可以用其他的词描述您的同居状况的。 - Re: 瞎掺和一下posted on 12/05/2008
婚姻二字是女字旁,于男性不公,特别是两个男同志之间的合配,我看应该改成人字旁(将来人兽通婚时代来临时再考虑是否改成反犬旁)。 - posted on 12/05/2008
未来婚姻模式:人与机器。看谁还能嫌‘他”水平差?
Forecast: Sex and Marriage with Robots by 2050
By Charles Q. Choi, Special to LiveScience
posted: 12 October 2007 04:46 pm ET
Humans could marry robots within the century. And consummate those vows.
"My forecast is that around 2050, the state of Massachusetts will be the first jurisdiction to legalize marriages with robots," artificial intelligence researcher David Levy at the University of Maastricht in the Netherlands told LiveScience. Levy recently completed his Ph.D. work on the subject of human-robot relationships, covering many of the privileges and practices that generally come with marriage as well as outside of it.
At first, sex with robots might be considered geeky, "but once you have a story like 'I had sex with a robot, and it was great!' appear someplace like Cosmo magazine, I'd expect many people to jump on the bandwagon," Levy said.
Pygmalion to Roomba
The idea of romance between humanity and our artistic and/or mechanical creations dates back to ancient times, with the Greek myth of the sculptor Pygmalion falling in love with the ivory statue he made named Galatea, to which the goddess Venus eventually granted life.
This notion persists in modern times. Not only has science fiction explored this idea, but 40 years ago, scientists noticed that students at times became unusually attracted to ELIZA, a computer program designed to ask questions and mimic a psychotherapist.
"There's a trend of robots becoming more human-like in appearance and coming more in contact with humans," Levy said. "At first robots were used impersonally, in factories where they helped build automobiles, for instance. Then they were used in offices to deliver mail, or to show visitors around museums, or in homes as vacuum cleaners, such as with the Roomba. Now you have robot toys, like Sony's Aibo robot dog, or Tickle Me Elmos, or digital pets like Tamagotchis."
In his thesis, "Intimate Relationships with Artificial Partners," Levy conjectures that robots will become so human-like in appearance, function and personality that many people will fall in love with them, have sex with them and even marry them.
"It may sound a little weird, but it isn't," Levy said. "Love and sex with robots are inevitable."
Sex in 5 years
Levy argues that psychologists have identified roughly a dozen basic reasons why people fall in love, "and almost all of them could apply to human-robot relationships. For instance, one thing that prompts people to fall in love are similarities in personality and knowledge, and all of this is programmable. Another reason people are more likely to fall in love is if they know the other person likes them, and that's programmable too."
In 2006, Henrik Christensen, founder of the European Robotics Research Network, predicted that people will be having sex with robots within five years, and Levy thinks that's quite likely. There are companies that already sell realistic sex dolls, "and it's just a matter of adding some electronics to them to add some vibration," he said, or endowing the robots with a few audio responses. "That's fairly primitive in terms of robotics, but the technology is already there."
As software becomes more advanced and the relationship between humans and robots becomes more personal, marriage could result. "One hundred years ago, interracial marriage and same-sex marriages were illegal in the United States. Interracial marriage has been legal now for 50 years, and same-sex marriage is legal in some parts of the states," Levy said. "There has been this trend in marriage where each partner gets to make their own choice of who they want to be with."
"The question is not if this will happen, but when," Levy said. "I am convinced the answer is much earlier than you think."
When and where it'll happen
Levy predicts Massachusetts will be the first jurisdiction to legalize human-robot marriage. "Massachusetts is more liberal than most other jurisdictions in the United States and has been at the forefront of same-sex marriage," Levy said. "There's also a lot of high-tech research there at places like MIT."
Although roboticist Ronald Arkin at the Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta does not think human-robot marriages will be legal anywhere by 2050, "anything's possible. And just because it's not legal doesn't mean people won't try it," he told LiveScience.
"Humans are very unusual creatures," Arkin said. "If you ask me if every human will want to marry a robot, my answer is probably not. But will there be a subset of people? There are people ready right now to marry sex toys."
The main benefit of human-robot marriage could be to make people who otherwise could not get married happier, "people who find it hard to form relationships, because they are extremely shy, or have psychological problems, or are just plain ugly or have unpleasant personalities," Levy said. "Of course, such people who completely give up the idea of forming relationships with other people are going to be few and far between, but they will be out there."
Ethical questions
The possibility of sex with robots could prove a mixed bag for humanity. For instance, robot sex could provide an outlet for criminal sexual urges. "If you have pedophiles and you let them use a robotic child, will that reduce the incidence of them abusing real children, or will it increase it?" Arkin asked. "I don't think anyone has the answers for that yet—that's where future research needs to be done."
Keeping a robot for sex could reduce human prostitution and the problems that come with it. However, "in a marriage or other relationship, one partner could be jealous or consider it infidelity if the other used a robot," Levy said. "But who knows, maybe some other relationships could welcome a robot. Instead of a woman saying, 'Darling, not tonight, I have a headache,' you could get 'Darling, I have a headache, why not use your robot?'"
Arkin noted that "if we allow robots to become a part of everyday life and bond with them, we'll have to ask questions about what's going to happen to our social fabric. How will they change humanity and civilization? I don't have any answers, but I think it's something we need to study. There's a real potential for intimacy here, where humans become psychologically and emotionally attached to these devices in ways we wouldn't to a vibrator."
Levy is currently writing a paper on the ethical treatment of robots. When it comes to sex and love with robots, "the ethical issues on how to treat them are something we'll have to consider very seriously, and they're very complicated issues," Levy said.
Levy successfully defended his thesis Oct. 11.
- posted on 12/09/2008
To insist calling gay marriage something else is the same as banning marriage among Asians or Blacks, but letting them call it something else too. How would you feel about that?
我不认为是same. 我不知道你为什么认为一样. 在解决了同性恋结合问题的大多数国家里,都是这样区分的. 人家都和我一样,没有认为same, 偏偏你认为same. 在美国, 对族群偏见敏感的黑人,他们绝大部分都是投赞成prop 8的票, 也都没有认为same. 我是在用当今的事实做根据. 你是在用对历史的联想做根据, 我们谁更实事求是呢?
As for current state of research on the biology of homosexuality, just go to wiki and search "biology and sexual orientation," you'd stop insisting that homosexuality is a choice.
我不知道为什么你争论中总是加着莫须有, 然后自己对这个莫须有口孰笔伐一番, full of yourself. 让人感到姿态胜于实质. 我没有说同性恋是个人选择的结果. 我在谈同性恋和异性恋的不同, 没有涉及任何同性恋是怎么来的. 同性恋是怎么来的,科学并没有给出结论, 我们也最好回避. 尽管同性恋的性取向的不稳定性(特别是在双胞胎的情况下,两人都是同性恋的极其的少), 让不少科学家猜测同性恋可能和基因无关,是后天的某种因素造成的. 但是, 科学根本没有给出明确性结论. 我们也最好不在此纠缠. 只说现象(相同与不同), 不说原因.
tar wrote:
To insist calling gay marriage something else is the same as banning marriage among Asians or Blacks, but letting them call it something else too. How would you feel about that? If you want to invoke "tradition" to ban gay marriage, then traditionally interracial marriage is banned in many states of this country, do you want to set the clock back to half a century ago?
Words carry implicit biases. Groups promote different tropes to advance their own agendas. You should go no further than examining racists calling segregation "separate but equal." That "neutral" phrase became the battle-cry call for the civil rights movement. Discrimination can't hide behind neutral sounding words.
As for current state of research on the biology of homosexuality, just go to wiki and search "biology and sexual orientation," you'd stop insisting that homosexuality is a choice.
- posted on 12/09/2008
我原文只在谈生物学意义上物种的正常与不正常.并没有说同性恋者精神上的事情. 同性恋的心理学研究是你引进的. 至于说给出哪一位生物学家说同性恋不正常. 我们cafe就有.请查过去一年内的贴. 其实你要是学了一点生物,进化论,你也应该能理解.
"结果是差距很大的"心理学调查你要感兴趣也不难找到.
sands wrote:
Please show the evidence for your assertion "....结果是差距很大".
"你给的所谓正常的结论的链接是心理学会的, 不是生物学会. " So? You know 心理学 is an interdisciplinary field, relying on many other fields such as biology, neurology, anthropology, sociology, law, etc. Pavlov is not a psychologist but that does not prevent Skinner's behaviorism from building upon his classic conditioning framework. Psychology credits Kinsey's pioneer work in sexuality research. Since you know "心理学会取消了同性恋是精神病的结论", you should also know that 心理学会 is calling everyone to make effort to eliminate prejudice and discrimination against homosexual people, right? Why do you think they are doing that (calling up for fighting against discrimination)? If you have no scientific base to indicate 同性恋's disorder, but you still think they are not normal, don't deserve to be treated the same way as heterosexuals (such as rights for marriage), then it must be the prejudice or fear or homophobia, or what else?
On the other hand, since you insist "生物学意义上说, 同性恋不是正常的, 你去问问任何生物学家...", perhaps you could name a 生物学家 who studied homosexuality scientitfically and stated indeed that 同性恋不是正常的.
Can you? Please? - posted on 12/09/2008
吃饭要有米, 争论要有理. 老板娘, 我们为了圣诞大餐的那几粒米争一争是小意思啦. 只怕我们在这边为了他们的婚姻拼死拼活, 他们今天给你个面子结婚,明天就离婚. 老板娘做事时有好心不得好报.这件事上,我看又很悬.我这么说同性恋者绝不是空口无凭, 老板娘这方面应该知道的很清楚.你如果和我一样, 根本不在乎政治正确,而追求事实,请承认我说的这一点.我呢, 并不把我说的这个当作正式的反驳你的观点, 而是当成泼给你的一盆冷水. 让在你捋胳膊挽袖子抄家伙和我血战之前再想一想, 不如端杯咖啡,在café的一角我们坐下来谈谈. 从人文的角度, 站在人性的层面谈这个prop 8. 这是café的特色, 也是老板娘的本色和专长. 把与prop 8有关的政治喧闹留给tar这样的政治小资和sands这样的女权小资去争去说吧. 我总是觉得在很多问题上café里的人们看问题的角度太单一了. 比如, 就说我们争论的核心问题--我坚持要在婚姻名称上作出区别,separate(names)but equal(legal rights). 他们马上就和"separate but equal”的种族隔离相联系. 而你,更是这样看问题. 要知道, 人们轻易走向政治, 都是深受各种影响,媒体的, 党派的等等. 只有从人性出发, 才能谈出自己切身的真实的东西. 我们需要一点李安的色戒眼光和角度: 没有过去,没有未来,没有国,没有家,没有政治, 只有那钻石闪光的一刻--人性的真实(我并没有看过色戒, 但是café里的几百贴足以让我比亲眼看色戒还要了解色戒). 所以, 当我看这个名称上的separate but equal 时, 它的意义根本不是种族, 不是阶级, 不是党派, 不是意识形态的separate, 而是性的separate. 我看到的是我们生活的世界充满了这样大家都认可的separate but equal的事情和现象. 我们的厕所之分,男厕所女厕所,不就是separate (sex) but equal(access)吗? 归根结底, separate but equal在种族问题上之所以不能被接受, 因为它的区分(separate)是以种族为基础的. 而种族不同只是外貌模样的skin-shallow之分. 这样的区分当然是错的. 同性恋和异性恋的区别不是肤色, 而是性取向.们性取向是核心.这和男女厕所有别(separate sex)意义上更近, 和肤色的区别不沾边. 你如果硬要在区分婚姻名称上做类比, 最好的(最人性的)类比不是种族类比.而是和性有关的上厕所. 可以说是你主张男女上同一厕所. 而我主张有男女厕所之分.
我上次的同性恋异性恋的生物意义和家庭社会意义上的不同的理由,你不同意不要紧. 老板娘是relationship专家, 我们还是从人性的角度出发, 就看这个relationship. 这是牛肉.
同性恋对待relationship和我们异性恋比较,可以说fundamentally不同. 这是由同性恋者所处的dilemma决定的.这话怎么说呢? 最简单地解释是, 也是借用来自他们自己之口的话: 我们爱真正的男人,可真正的男人爱的是女人.也不知道谁第一个说这样话的,我佩服他说出了truth. 就象我佩服你所讨厌的Elton John说出了truth一样: we’re different(参见我给的链接). 公正地说, 我们异性恋也有自己在relationship中的dilemma,或者说myth, 让我们倍受挫折和迷惑. 可是我们的myth和他们的dilemma不是一回事情. 他们有一条不可跨过的河, 我们有一座不可逾越的山. 大家都有困难.如果你对这两种困境的终极真正理解的话, 你应该知道, 我们是有路可走, 只是可能甚至一辈子在山中迷失,最后导致失望绝望; 他们是从一开始就知道无路可走, 不能迈雷池一步. 所以, 很多relationship的调查, 同性恋者和异性恋对relationship的认识和理解有很大的不同. 比如, commitment的重要性在同性恋者的意识中非常淡. 这很大程度上是由他们的dilemma先天决定的.
先说这些吧. 我不同意你,你就想跟我血战. 我呢, 看来也是找死. 眼看你失去人文本色,"进步"为一个政治小资, 我也想和你战一战,把你拉回到属于你的位置上.
玛雅 wrote:
哈哈,为了咖啡的长治久安,无奈之下不得不迎接老圣的挑战,老圣,披挂好了吗?马喂饱了没?方阵排好了吗?
- posted on 12/10/2008
哇塞,我最怕老圣这样跟我来持久战了,细腻细致到极点。 我反对prop 8,毫无政治因素,完全是人文的同情。我觉得不让他们结婚一点都不人性。
st dude wrote:
吃饭要有米, 争论要有理. 老板娘, 我们为了圣诞大餐的那几粒米争一争是小意思啦. 只怕我们在这边为了他们的婚姻拼死拼活, 他们今天给你个面子结婚,明天就离婚. 老板娘做事时有好心不得好报.这件事上,我看又很悬.我这么说同性恋者绝不是空口无凭, 老板娘这方面应该知道的很清楚.你如果和我一样, 根本不在乎政治正确,而追求事实,请承认我说的这一点.我呢, 并不把我说的这个当作正式的反驳你的观点, 而是当成泼给你的一盆冷水. 让在你捋胳膊挽袖子抄家伙和我血战之前再想一想, 不如端杯咖啡,在café的一角我们坐下来谈谈. 从人文的角度, 站在人性的层面谈这个prop 8. 这是café的特色, 也是老板娘的本色和专长. 把与prop 8有关的政治喧闹留给tar这样的政治小资和sands这样的女权小资去争去说吧. 我总是觉得在很多问题上café里的人们看问题的角度太单一了. 比如, 就说我们争论的核心问题--我坚持要在婚姻名称上作出区别,separate(names)but equal(legal rights). 他们马上就和"separate but equal”的种族隔离相联系. 而你,更是这样看问题. 要知道, 人们轻易走向政治, 都是深受各种影响,媒体的, 党派的等等. 只有从人性出发, 才能谈出自己切身的真实的东西. 我们需要一点李安的色戒眼光和角度: 没有过去,没有未来,没有国,没有家,没有政治, 只有那钻石闪光的一刻--人性的真实(我并没有看过色戒, 但是café里的几百贴足以让我比亲眼看色戒还要了解色戒). 所以, 当我看这个名称上的separate but equal 时, 它的意义根本不是种族, 不是阶级, 不是党派, 不是意识形态的separate, 而是性的separate. 我看到的是我们生活的世界充满了这样大家都认可的separate but equal的事情和现象. 我们的厕所之分,男厕所女厕所,不就是separate (sex) but equal(access)吗? 归根结底, separate but equal在种族问题上之所以不能被接受, 因为它的区分(separate)是以种族为基础的. 而种族不同只是外貌模样的skin-shallow之分. 这样的区分当然是错的. 同性恋和异性恋的区别不是肤色, 而是性取向.们性取向是核心.这和男女厕所有别(separate sex)意义上更近, 和肤色的区别不沾边. 你如果硬要在区分婚姻名称上做类比, 最好的(最人性的)类比不是种族类比.而是和性有关的上厕所. 可以说是你主张男女上同一厕所. 而我主张有男女厕所之分.
我上次的同性恋异性恋的生物意义和家庭社会意义上的不同的理由,你不同意不要紧. 老板娘是relationship专家, 我们还是从人性的角度出发, 就看这个relationship. 这是牛肉.
同性恋对待relationship和我们异性恋比较,可以说fundamentally不同. 这是由同性恋者所处的dilemma决定的.这话怎么说呢? 最简单地解释是, 也是借用来自他们自己之口的话: 我们爱真正的男人,可真正的男人爱的是女人.也不知道谁第一个说这样话的,我佩服他说出了truth. 就象我佩服你所讨厌的Elton John说出了truth一样: we’re different(参见我给的链接). 公正地说, 我们异性恋也有自己在relationship中的dilemma,或者说myth, 让我们倍受挫折和迷惑. 可是我们的myth和他们的dilemma不是一回事情. 他们有一条不可跨过的河, 我们有一座不可逾越的山. 大家都有困难.如果你对这两种困境的终极真正理解的话, 你应该知道, 我们是有路可走, 只是可能甚至一辈子在山中迷失,最后导致失望绝望; 他们是从一开始就知道无路可走, 不能迈雷池一步. 所以, 很多relationship的调查, 同性恋者和异性恋对relationship的认识和理解有很大的不同. 比如, commitment的重要性在同性恋者的意识中非常淡. 这很大程度上是由他们的dilemma先天决定的.
先说这些吧. 我不同意你,你就想跟我血战. 我呢, 看来也是找死. 眼看你失去人文本色,"进步"为一个政治小资, 我也想和你战一战,把你拉回到属于你的位置上.
玛雅 wrote:
哈哈,为了咖啡的长治久安,无奈之下不得不迎接老圣的挑战,老圣,披挂好了吗?马喂饱了没?方阵排好了吗?
- posted on 12/10/2008
今天有空,先逮着老圣来扎针。性别研究是个很大的题目,文章介绍到处都有。我不是专家,但看到咖啡里诸多咖啡友对同性恋的了解如此谬误,不得不再多解释一下。还是逐段来吧。
他们今天给你个面子结婚,明天就离婚. 老板娘做事时有好心不得好报.这件事上,我看又很悬.我这么说同性恋者绝不是空口无凭, 老板娘这方面应该知道的很清楚.
今天结婚,明天离婚的,在异性恋中比比皆是,有数据说明同性恋的离婚率高于异性恋吗?有数据表明同性恋婚姻更加朝三暮四吗?
tar这样的政治小资和sands这样的女权小资去争去说吧.
sand原来是女权小资啊,真的不知道,是CND的文友?高兴。
>我们的厕所之分,男厕所女厕所,不就是separate (sex) but equal(access)吗? 归根结底, separate but equal在种族问题上之所以不能被接受, 因为它的区分(separate)是以种族为基础的. 而种族不同只是外貌模样的skin-shallow之分. 这样的区分当然是错的.
好,暂时同意你的厕所比喻,但我要问的是两边的厕所的配置一样吗?你给同性恋婚姻同样的权利,子女收养、离婚教堂同样的待遇吗?两边厕所配置不一样,我们当然要去配置高级的厕所。
我上次的同性恋异性恋的生物意义和家庭社会意义上的不同的理由,你不同意不要紧. 老板娘是relationship专家, 我们还是从人性的角度出发, 就看这个relationship. 这是牛肉.
最简单地解释是, 也是借用来自他们自己之口的话: 我们爱真正的男人,可真正的男人爱的是女人.
很多同性恋的朋友喜欢的都是跟他们一样女性化的男人。所以你常见到两个漂亮男人走在一起,毫无疑问他们是gay。老圣,你住哪儿啊,见过多少对同性恋人啊?去纽约三藩的街上走走可能给您更多感性认识。
> 比如, commitment的重要性在同性恋者的意识中非常淡. 这很大程度上是由他们的dilemma先天决定的.
这点老圣又是糊涂了。同性恋人关系不稳定有几个因素,第一,社会不承认,很多人依然在closet里,他们不愿在公开场合承认自己的性取向,所以他们容易动摇朝三暮四;第二,同性恋群体是知性智性群体,一般收入高于常人,他们选择配偶非常挑剔;第三,没有婚姻的约束,他们为什么不朝秦暮楚?同性恋群体的流动、不稳定,是他们被歧视的一个明显表征。更有许多人,一见到同性恋,马上就联想到艾滋病,把他们当作性病传播者,简直跟见到麻风病人一样。
老圣,我接触的同性恋、畸恋、虐恋的例子我想比您多,您最好还是先了解这个群体再发表看法。
- posted on 12/10/2008
So you and a bunch of like minded bigots think it not the same, and that's your argument? Talking about sombody who is "full of himself." You are the one who is talking about that sacred cow of "traditional" definition of marriage or are you not? Is this another one of my "加着莫须有"? In "traditional" marriage polygamy was a norm and interracial marriage is banned and these are facts, not a "历史的联想" in your delusional mind. Mentioning many blacks who voted for prop 8 doesn't change the fact that they are the bigots on this issue, or for that matter you are one too.
And don't try to weasel out from your bigotry by playing semantics. You either blame the gays for their voluntary embracing of their "lifestyle" (therefore choice) or you attribute it to biological explanations which include genetic, hormonal and other chemical processes. By arguing against both, your have twisted your logic into hopeless knots but in the end, you can't have your pie and eat it too. So what is it, choice or biology? Please don't shoot off from both sides of your mouth.
st dude wrote:
To insist calling gay marriage something else is the same as banning marriage among Asians or Blacks, but letting them call it something else too. How would you feel about that?我不认为是same. 我不知道你为什么认为一样. 在解决了同性恋结合问题的大多数国家里,都是这样区分的. 人家都和我一样,没有认为same, 偏偏你认为same. 在美国, 对族群偏见敏感的黑人,他们绝大部分都是投赞成prop 8的票, 也都没有认为same. 我是在用当今的事实做根据. 你是在用对历史的联想做根据, 我们谁更实事求是呢?
As for current state of research on the biology of homosexuality, just go to wiki and search "biology and sexual orientation," you'd stop insisting that homosexuality is a choice.我不知道为什么你争论中总是加着莫须有, 然后自己对这个莫须有口孰笔伐一番, full of yourself. 让人感到姿态胜于实质. 我没有说同性恋是个人选择的结果. 我在谈同性恋和异性恋的不同, 没有涉及任何同性恋是怎么来的. 同性恋是怎么来的,科学并没有给出结论, 我们也最好回避. 尽管同性恋的性取向的不稳定性(特别是在双胞胎的情况下,两人都是同性恋的极其的少), 让不少科学家猜测同性恋可能和基因无关,是后天的某种因素造成的. 但是, 科学根本没有给出明确性结论. 我们也最好不在此纠缠. 只说现象(相同与不同), 不说原因.
tar wrote:
To insist calling gay marriage something else is the same as banning marriage among Asians or Blacks, but letting them call it something else too. How would you feel about that? If you want to invoke "tradition" to ban gay marriage, then traditionally interracial marriage is banned in many states of this country, do you want to set the clock back to half a century ago?
Words carry implicit biases. Groups promote different tropes to advance their own agendas. You should go no further than examining racists calling segregation "separate but equal." That "neutral" phrase became the battle-cry call for the civil rights movement. Discrimination can't hide behind neutral sounding words.
As for current state of research on the biology of homosexuality, just go to wiki and search "biology and sexual orientation," you'd stop insisting that homosexuality is a choice.
- Re: 跟moab,老圣咬文嚼字谈婚论嫁 同性恋者的民权运动posted on 12/10/2008
Anyone who doesn't agree with "me" are violating my first amendment rights and are bigots. How ironnic (and typical).
- Re: 跟moab,老圣咬文嚼字谈婚论嫁 同性恋者的民权运动posted on 12/10/2008
When you hold bigoted views, yes that will make you a bigot.
Of course you can explain to people why your views are not bigoted, by reason and logic. But I seem to recall you refused to do so at my invitation.
moab wrote:
Anyone who doesn't agree with "me" is violating my first amendment rights and are bigots. How ironnic (and typical).
- posted on 12/10/2008
Right. Who's the one to judge? And what gives some people the rights to call others bigots? The very same can be said about themselves. You are one who's been crying out foul when in fact, you fouled by your own standard.
As for your "invitation", I said before I saw where you are coming from, and we are fundamentally different. For example, you repeatedly used the historical ban of interracial marriage as your argument for the re-definition of marriage, which is irrelevant. Your argument is basically that out of empathy we should group all kind of relationships together and call it "marriage". To me this is "too simple, sometimes naive".
tar wrote:
When you hold bigoted views, yes that will make you a bigot.
Of course you can explain to people why your views are not bigoted, by reason and logic. But I seem to recall you refused to do so at my invitation.
moab wrote:
Anyone who doesn't agree with "me" is violating my first amendment rights and are bigots. How ironnic (and typical).
- posted on 12/10/2008
Ohter than to recite your "beliefs," you have no idea of how to argue with reason and logic do you? You call gay marriage "different" because traditonal definition of marriage doesn't include it. I told you traditional marriage didn't include interracial marriage either and now it does, how is it irrelevant? I hope not because it's just you said so? Instead of out of "empathy," my arguments are cold logic. Whereas you my friend, out of blue comes this "too simple, sometimes naive" drivel repeatedly. Remember, when express your opinions that are not "too simple, sometimes naive," you need to elaborate far more expansively than you currently let on.
moab wrote:
Right. Who's the one to judge? And what gives some people the rights to call others bigots? The very same can be said about themselves. You are one who's been crying out foul when in fact, you fouled by your own standard.
As for your "invitation", I said before I saw where you are coming from, and we are fundamentally different. For example, you repeatedly used the historical ban of interracial marriage as your argument for the re-definition of marriage, which is irrelevant. Your argument is basically that out of empathy we should group all kind of relationships together and call it "marriage". To me this is "too simple, sometimes naive".
tar wrote:
When you hold bigoted views, yes that will make you a bigot.
Of course you can explain to people why your views are not bigoted, by reason and logic. But I seem to recall you refused to do so at my invitation.
moab wrote:
Anyone who doesn't agree with "me" is violating my first amendment rights and are bigots. How ironnic (and typical).
- posted on 12/10/2008
You didn't read what I said. Or you read it but didn't register. I am amazed you can be so selective in your reading. If you are indeed curious, go back and read my posts on this position.
There's a subtle difference between calling something "irrelevant" in an argument versus calling somebody "bigots". Figuring this out is a good step toward seeing the subtlety between interracial marriage and gay marriage. I think you let empathy get in your way of thinking hence the "affective error" I mentioned in my first reply to this thread.
tar wrote:
Ohter than to recite your "beliefs," you have no idea of how to argue with reason and logic do you? You call gay marriage "different" because traditonal definition of marriage doesn't include it. I told you traditional marriage didn't include interracial marriage either and now it does, how is it irrelevant? I hope not because it's just you said so? Instead of out of "empathy," my arguments are cold logic. Whereas you my friend, out of blue comes this "too simple, sometimes naive" drivel repeatedly. Remember, when express your opinions that are not "too simple, sometimes naive," you need to elaborate far more expansively than you currently let on.
moab wrote:
Right. Who's the one to judge? And what gives some people the rights to call others bigots? The very same can be said about themselves. You are one who's been crying out foul when in fact, you fouled by your own standard.
As for your "invitation", I said before I saw where you are coming from, and we are fundamentally different. For example, you repeatedly used the historical ban of interracial marriage as your argument for the re-definition of marriage, which is irrelevant. Your argument is basically that out of empathy we should group all kind of relationships together and call it "marriage". To me this is "too simple, sometimes naive".
tar wrote:
When you hold bigoted views, yes that will make you a bigot.
Of course you can explain to people why your views are not bigoted, by reason and logic. But I seem to recall you refused to do so at my invitation.
moab wrote:
Anyone who doesn't agree with "me" is violating my first amendment rights and are bigots. How ironnic (and typical).
- posted on 12/10/2008
If you can indeed provide a concisely argued logic as to why it's irrelevant, then that's the begining of a dialog. By continually pronuonce a position or an opinion without giving any reason, no matter how "subtle" you are trying to intimate, you are not going to convince anybody but yourslef. Remember, what's in your mind is not crystal clear to everybody when you fail to express them. You don't seem to grasp this concept of communication to the least, as demonstrated by your repeated pronouncement of "this marriage is diffrent than that" in the other thread, without ever muster a shred of coherent reasoning to back it up.
As to calling people bigots, I alwasy give evidence of their bigotry. You can call me any name you want, as long as you provide the evidence befitting the epithet you throw at me. (As an example, you accused me of selective reading and distorted what you said but couldn't provide any details, that's when you need to reach deep in your brain and magically convert your thought on paper, or as it is, the computer screen.)
moab wrote:
You didn't read what I said. Or you read it but didn't register. I am amazed you can be so selective in your reading. If you are indeed curious, go back and read my posts on this position.
There's a subtle difference between calling something "irrelevant" in an argument versus calling somebody "bigots". Figuring this out is a good step toward seeing the subtlety between interracial marriage and gay marriage. I think you let empathy get in your way of thinking hence the "affective error" I mentioned in my first reply to this thread.
tar wrote:
Ohter than to recite your "beliefs," you have no idea of how to argue with reason and logic do you? You call gay marriage "different" because traditonal definition of marriage doesn't include it. I told you traditional marriage didn't include interracial marriage either and now it does, how is it irrelevant? I hope not because it's just you said so? Instead of out of "empathy," my arguments are cold logic. Whereas you my friend, out of blue comes this "too simple, sometimes naive" drivel repeatedly. Remember, when express your opinions that are not "too simple, sometimes naive," you need to elaborate far more expansively than you currently let on.
moab wrote:
Right. Who's the one to judge? And what gives some people the rights to call others bigots? The very same can be said about themselves. You are one who's been crying out foul when in fact, you fouled by your own standard.
As for your "invitation", I said before I saw where you are coming from, and we are fundamentally different. For example, you repeatedly used the historical ban of interracial marriage as your argument for the re-definition of marriage, which is irrelevant. Your argument is basically that out of empathy we should group all kind of relationships together and call it "marriage". To me this is "too simple, sometimes naive".
tar wrote:
When you hold bigoted views, yes that will make you a bigot.
Of course you can explain to people why your views are not bigoted, by reason and logic. But I seem to recall you refused to do so at my invitation.
moab wrote:
Anyone who doesn't agree with "me" is violating my first amendment rights and are bigots. How ironnic (and typical).
- posted on 12/10/2008
I have been referring to the "biological" marriage concept, in a similar way as the species definition. You have acknowledged that gay orientation may have its genetic connection, while on the other hand ignored that difference and advocated a big "set" that includes these two different kind of relationships. Discrimination was not the issue and it has been wrongfully used in masking the true agenda of the gay community and its advocates, which is, social legalization. This legalization in itself reflects the mentality of the gays and advocates, that is "we are different and we need a legal definition for protection". This could be resolved by legalizing the gay relationship with a legal term, one that properly reflects its nature, something like "civil union".
Birds and bats both have wings, yet they have totally different evolution history, belong to different positions int the phylogeny tree and shouldn't be grouped together. It's not that one is better than the other, it's just they are different.
-my last post of the day.
tar wrote:
If you can indeed provide a concisely argued logic as to why it's irrelevant, then that's the begining of a dialog. By continually pronuonce a position or an opinion without giving any reason, no matter how "subtle" you are trying to intimate, you are not going to convince anybody but yourslef. Remember, what's in your mind is not crystal clear to everybody when you fail to express them. You don't seem to grasp this concept of communication to the least, as demonstrated by your repeated pronouncement of "this marriage is diffrent than that" in the other thread, without ever muster a shred of coherent reasoning to back it up.
As to calling people bigots, I alwasy give evidence of their bigotry. You can call me any name you want, as long as you provide the evidence befitting the epithet you throw at me. (As an example, you accused me of selective reading and distorted what you said but couldn't provide any details, that's when you need to reach deep in your brain and magically convert your thought on paper, or as it is, the computer screen.)
moab wrote:
You didn't read what I said. Or you read it but didn't register. I am amazed you can be so selective in your reading. If you are indeed curious, go back and read my posts on this position.
There's a subtle difference between calling something "irrelevant" in an argument versus calling somebody "bigots". Figuring this out is a good step toward seeing the subtlety between interracial marriage and gay marriage. I think you let empathy get in your way of thinking hence the "affective error" I mentioned in my first reply to this thread.
- posted on 12/11/2008
What are you trying to say? That the gays are genetically and biologically different that we should class them in a separate "species" category? How does that not lead to my argument, that if you think genetically different people like gays (isn't each and every one of us different genetically?) should be segregated from the rest of the population, what's wrong then to segregate different races becuase of the genetic differences between them?
As I told you before, the racists in the south used the term "separate but equal" to subjugate black people to second class citizen status. That's your "civil union" in its previous incarnation.
moab wrote:
I have been referring to the "biological" marriage concept, in a similar way as the species definition. You have acknowledged that gay orientation may have its genetic connection, while on the other hand ignored that difference and advocated a big "set" that includes these two different kind of relationships. Discrimination was not the issue and it has been wrongfully used in masking the true agenda of the gay community and its advocates, which is, social legalization. This legalization in itself reflects the mentality of the gays and advocates, that is "we are different and we need a legal definition for protection". This could be resolved by legalizing the gay relationship with a legal term, one that properly reflects its nature, something like "civil union".
Birds and bats both have wings, yet they have totally different evolution history, belong to different positions int the phylogeny tree and shouldn't be grouped together. It's not that one is better than the other, it's just they are different.
-my last post of the day.
tar wrote:
If you can indeed provide a concisely argued logic as to why it's irrelevant, then that's the begining of a dialog. By continually pronuonce a position or an opinion without giving any reason, no matter how "subtle" you are trying to intimate, you are not going to convince anybody but yourslef. Remember, what's in your mind is not crystal clear to everybody when you fail to express them. You don't seem to grasp this concept of communication to the least, as demonstrated by your repeated pronouncement of "this marriage is diffrent than that" in the other thread, without ever muster a shred of coherent reasoning to back it up.
As to calling people bigots, I alwasy give evidence of their bigotry. You can call me any name you want, as long as you provide the evidence befitting the epithet you throw at me. (As an example, you accused me of selective reading and distorted what you said but couldn't provide any details, that's when you need to reach deep in your brain and magically convert your thought on paper, or as it is, the computer screen.)
moab wrote:
You didn't read what I said. Or you read it but didn't register. I am amazed you can be so selective in your reading. If you are indeed curious, go back and read my posts on this position.
There's a subtle difference between calling something "irrelevant" in an argument versus calling somebody "bigots". Figuring this out is a good step toward seeing the subtlety between interracial marriage and gay marriage. I think you let empathy get in your way of thinking hence the "affective error" I mentioned in my first reply to this thread.
- posted on 12/11/2008
It's okay they are different. The marriage concept does evolve, but within the context of being between a man and a women. You keep extrapolating on the "interracial' and "race" difference, and ignored this fact. Gay relationships on the surface may look "similar" to the traditional marriage, as claimed, both are "two people in love with each other and want to build a family", and they may even have a baby with help of modern medicine. Yet how each arrives at this relationship is different and have different consequences. The gay relationship is not "self-sustainable". This difference, put in the context of traditional marriage, is much more significant than the claimed "interracial" or "genetically different individual". The essence of the evolution of the human society is family. There are different ways to establish a family. Through marriage, or civil union.
tar wrote:
What are you trying to say? That the gays are genetically and biologically different that we should class them in a separate "species" category? How does that not lead to my argument, that if you think genetically different people like gays (isn't each and every one of us different genetically?) should be segregated from the rest of the population, what's wrong then to segregate different races becuase of the genetic differences between them?
As I told you before, the racists in the south used the term "separate but equal" to subjugate black people to second class citizen status. That's your "civil union" in its previous incarnation.
moab wrote:
I have been referring to the "biological" marriage concept, in a similar way as the species definition. You have acknowledged that gay orientation may have its genetic connection, while on the other hand ignored that difference and advocated a big "set" that includes these two different kind of relationships. Discrimination was not the issue and it has been wrongfully used in masking the true agenda of the gay community and its advocates, which is, social legalization. This legalization in itself reflects the mentality of the gays and advocates, that is "we are different and we need a legal definition for protection". This could be resolved by legalizing the gay relationship with a legal term, one that properly reflects its nature, something like "civil union".
Birds and bats both have wings, yet they have totally different evolution history, belong to different positions int the phylogeny tree and shouldn't be grouped together. It's not that one is better than the other, it's just they are different.
-my last post of the day.
tar wrote:
If you can indeed provide a concisely argued logic as to why it's irrelevant, then that's the begining of a dialog. By continually pronuonce a position or an opinion without giving any reason, no matter how "subtle" you are trying to intimate, you are not going to convince anybody but yourslef. Remember, what's in your mind is not crystal clear to everybody when you fail to express them. You don't seem to grasp this concept of communication to the least, as demonstrated by your repeated pronouncement of "this marriage is diffrent than that" in the other thread, without ever muster a shred of coherent reasoning to back it up.
As to calling people bigots, I alwasy give evidence of their bigotry. You can call me any name you want, as long as you provide the evidence befitting the epithet you throw at me. (As an example, you accused me of selective reading and distorted what you said but couldn't provide any details, that's when you need to reach deep in your brain and magically convert your thought on paper, or as it is, the computer screen.)
moab wrote:
You didn't read what I said. Or you read it but didn't register. I am amazed you can be so selective in your reading. If you are indeed curious, go back and read my posts on this position.
There's a subtle difference between calling something "irrelevant" in an argument versus calling somebody "bigots". Figuring this out is a good step toward seeing the subtlety between interracial marriage and gay marriage. I think you let empathy get in your way of thinking hence the "affective error" I mentioned in my first reply to this thread.
- posted on 12/11/2008
moab wrote:
It's okay they are different.
Who or what are differnt?
The marriage concept does evolve,
Hallelujah! You finally see the light. That's a quantum leap in all our discussion on this subject so far. You should be commended for making this first step in acknowledging this historical fact.
but within the context of being between a man and a women.
Wrong. It had been between a man and his multiple concubines, or more precisely, his properties.
You keep extrapolating on the "interracial' and "race" difference, and ignored this fact.
That's called making a logic inference from an analogy, which seems to have still remained a mystery to you.
Gay relationships on the surface may look "similar" to the traditional marriage, as claimed, both are "two people in love with each other and want to build a family", and they may even have a baby with help of modern medicine. Yet how each arrives at this relationship is different and have different consequences. The gay relationship is not "self-sustainable".
What "self-sustainable"? Didn't you forget you just said they can reproduce with the help of modern medicine? And if that's the argument, are you gonna deny marriage to heterosexual couples who don't wnat to have children?
This difference, put in the context of traditional marriage, is much more significant than the claimed "interracial" or "genetically different individual".
I see your progress: at least you abandoned your "genetic difference" argument you put forth just yeaterday. Let's hear some new argument after my rebutal to your previous ones.
The essence of the evolution of the human society is family. There are different ways to establish a family. Through marriage, or civil union.
Aside from your misunderstanding about the history of marriage, the above statement is nonsensical. Again you should really think about the term "equal but separate," and think hard about what I said about logic inference.
- posted on 12/11/2008
tar wrote:
moab wrote:Who or what are differnt?
It's okay they are different.
? Again?
The marriage concept does evolve,Hallelujah! You finally see the light. That's a quantum leap in all our discussion on this subject so far. You should be commended for making this first step in acknowledging this historical fact.
Why do you break up the sentence like this? Much like your "equal but separate" claim, you are not paying attention to the context it's being applied to.
but within the context of being between a man and a women.Wrong. It had been between a man and his multiple concubines, or more precisely, his properties.
You keep extrapolating on the "interracial' and "race" difference, and ignored this fact.That's called making a logic inference from an analogy, which seems to have still remained a mystery to you.
Humm. See my response 8 lines above.
Gay relationships on the surface may look "similar" to the traditional marriage, as claimed, both are "two people in love with each other and want to build a family", and they may even have a baby with help of modern medicine. Yet how each arrives at this relationship is different and have different consequences. The gay relationship is not "self-sustainable".What "self-sustainable"? Didn't you forget you just said they can reproduce with the help of modern medicine? And if that's the argument, are you gonna deny marriage to heterosexual couples who don't wnat to have children?
Still different. Alleged genetic connections is one thing, the social environment kids grow up is another. And believe it or not, the former is overrated from time to time, and the latter has just as much, if not more impact on the rearing of a child. I knew you'd bring up DINK or infertility into the argument thus I intentionally didn't mention them in my last reply. Exceptions don't reflect the general trend.
This difference, put in the context of traditional marriage, is much more significant than the claimed "interracial" or "genetically different individual".I see your progress: at least you abandoned your "genetic difference" argument you put forth just yeaterday. Let's hear some new argument after my rebutal to your previous ones.
You bought up the "generic difference" in one of your rebutal to someone else, if I recall correctly, hence my mentioning of it in my yesterday's post.
The essence of the evolution of the human society is family. There are different ways to establish a family. Through marriage, or civil union.Aside from your misunderstanding about the history of marriage, the above statement is nonsensical. Again you should really think about the term "equal but separate," and think hard about what I said about logic inference.
What do you base your definition of marriage on? Any two person who want to live together and be considered a "family"? When you take "equal but separate" out of its original context(historical southern racism), and try to fit it for advocating the gay relationship, that term needs to be looked at with a fresh eye, in its new context.
- posted on 12/12/2008
No, you don't seem to be able to grasp the idea that marriage is not a secred cow. Contrary to popular belief, it is not cast on the stone as God's law. It has changed from a union of multiple partners within an incestrous tribe to become a monogamous all inclusive contract between a man and a woman, for now. But once the definition can be changed, then there is no reason to say we should stick to what is currently defined. New proposition: extend the definition to between two human beings, regardless of gender.
Now let's examine your objections so far. You first proposed that becuase of the difference of genetic makeup between the gays and the heterosexuals, they should be categorized into a different species just like bats and birds are different species. (Regardless who brought up the idea of genetics, you are not denying that was your proposal are you?)
For reason(s) still unclear to me as to why it's relevant to the discussion of marriage, I simply pointed out that everybody has a different genetic makeup than anybody else, and from one of your previous posts, I had thought you abandoned that ridiculous idea. If you are trying to revive that idea again, come up with a more cogent reasoning then.
And then you are trying to make reproductive issue as your trump card, never mind contradicting your own words just a few sentence earlier that the modern medicine has already rendered this a moot point. (You keep busy accusing me of not paying attention to what you said but never able to give an example. I suggest you keep track of your own words lest you run the risk of being silly.)
After I pointed out your inconsistency, what did you do? You meandered all over the place and finally settled to accusing gay lifestyle's bad infleunce on kids. Do you actually have ANY example that a kid grow up in a gay family was steered to become a gay? I am not even asking you to provide a scientific study for making that claim. Any anecdote will do.
Now you keep harping on the notion that previously marriage has only included heterosexual relationships therefore homosexual relationship is out. The fallacy of this circular logic is so apparent that I am astounded you can't see it. You can only provide reasons OUTSIDE of the original premise to try to prove it true or false. In the language of syllogism, you are using the same argument for both major and minor premises to derive your conclusion. Can I be more clear on this?
Finally you repeatedly accused me of using terms out of "context." A bit of advice first, it's not an escaping chute you can use whenever you are cornered on your logic fallacy. The "equal but separate" racist battle cry is perfectly parallel to your "civil union but not marriage" idea in terms of implied prejudice. And that that phrase formed part of the basis for banning interracial marriage is very much in "context" in our discussion of gay marriage, unless you want to waltz back to your circular logic again.
moab wrote:
tar wrote:? Again?
moab wrote:Who or what are differnt?
It's okay they are different.
The marriage concept does evolve,Hallelujah! You finally see the light. That's a quantum leap in all our discussion on this subject so far. You should be commended for making this first step in acknowledging this historical fact.
but within the context of being between a man and a women.Wrong. It had been between a man and his multiple concubines, or more precisely, his properties.
Humm. See my response 8 lines above.You keep extrapolating on the "interracial' and "race" difference, and ignored this fact.That's called making a logic inference from an analogy, which seems to have still remained a mystery to you.
Gay relationships on the surface may look "similar" to the traditional marriage, as claimed, both are "two people in love with each other and want to build a family", and they may even have a baby with help of modern medicine. Yet how each arrives at this relationship is different and have different consequences. The gay relationship is not "self-sustainable".What "self-sustainable"? Didn't you forget you just said they can reproduce with the help of modern medicine? And if that's the argument, are you gonna deny marriage to heterosexual couples who don't wnat to have children?
This difference, put in the context of traditional marriage, is much more significant than the claimed "interracial" or "genetically different individual".I see your progress: at least you abandoned your "genetic difference" argument you put forth just yeaterday. Let's hear some new argument after my rebutal to your previous ones.
What do you base your definition of marriage on? Any two person who want to live together and be considered a "family"? When you take "equal but separate" out of its original context(historical southern racism), and try to fit it for advocating the gay relationship, that term needs to be looked at with a fresh eye, in its new context.The essence of the evolution of the human society is family. There are different ways to establish a family. Through marriage, or civil union.Aside from your misunderstanding about the history of marriage, the above statement is nonsensical. Again you should really think about the term "equal but separate," and think hard about what I said about logic inference.
- posted on 12/12/2008
tar wrote:
No, you don't seem to be able to grasp the idea that marriage is not a secred cow. Contrary to popular belief, it is not cast on the stone as God's law. It has changed from a union of multiple partners within an incestrous tribe to become a monogamous all inclusive contract between a man and a woman, for now. But once the definition can be changed, then there is no reason to say we should stick to what is currently defined. New proposition: extend the definition to between two human beings, regardless of gender.
Contrary to what you think, marriage is a sacred cow, as evidenced by the huge support it gets from the voters. Yes it appeared to be a "marginal" win in number, yet keep in mind this happened in the most liberal state. You need to pay attention to what people think from out side of the extreme left. Your logic that since the definition of marriage has evolved in the past warrants a drastic change today is, by your very own definition, a fallacy.
Now let's examine your objections so far. You first proposed that becuase of the difference of genetic makeup between the gays and the heterosexuals, they should be categorized into a different species just like bats and birds are different species. (Regardless who brought up the idea of genetics, you are not denying that was your proposal are you?)
Gay relationship and marriage, though look similar to the inadvertent eyes, are different. That's the message from that analogy. If you jump out of your cyclic "logical" thinking routine for a moment, is that that hard to see?
For reason(s) still unclear to me as to why it's relevant to the discussion of marriage, I simply pointed out that everybody has a different genetic makeup than anybody else, and from one of your previous posts, I had thought you abandoned that ridiculous idea. If you are trying to revive that idea again, come up with a more cogent reasoning then.
Your thinking are too far detached for practical purposes. The fundamental difference between gay relationship and marriage is same sex vs. opposite sex. It has its evolution root, and over time social norms and religion evolved with that concept. That's a fact. And that's the context.
And then you are trying to make reproductive issue as your trump card, never mind contradicting your own words just a few sentence earlier that the modern medicine has already rendered this a moot point. (You keep busy accusing me of not paying attention to what you said but never able to give an example. I suggest you keep track of your own words lest you run the risk of being silly.)
Here's the thing. Modern medicine helping make gay partners having a "child" does not change the nature of the relationship itself, that is, it's same sex. Using that for your argument, that's the real moot point.
After I pointed out your inconsistency, what did you do? You meandered all over the place and finally settled to accusing gay lifestyle's bad infleunce on kids. Do you actually have ANY example that a kid grow up in a gay family was steered to become a gay? I am not even asking you to provide a scientific study for making that claim. Any anecdote will do.
It's called common sense.
Now you keep harping on the notion that previously marriage has only included heterosexual relationships therefore homosexual relationship is out. The fallacy of this circular logic is so apparent that I am astounded you can't see it. You can only provide reasons OUTSIDE of the original premise to try to prove it true or false. In the language of syllogism, you are using the same argument for both major and minor premises to derive your conclusion. Can I be more clear on this?
By the same token, you've been barking on this notion of the evolution of the marriage definition. And,
Thanks to heterosexual marriages, the gay community can protect today.
Finally you repeatedly accused me of using terms out of "context." A bit of advice first, it's not an escaping chute you can use whenever you are cornered on your logic fallacy. The "equal but separate" racist battle cry is perfectly parallel to your "civil union but not marriage" idea in terms of implied prejudice. And that that phrase formed part of the basis for banning interracial marriage is very much in "context" in our discussion of gay marriage, unless you want to waltz back to your circular logic again.
You ever need to declare your ethnicity? Isn't that "equal but separate" by your standard? That's your fallacy.
moab wrote:
tar wrote:? Again?
moab wrote:Who or what are differnt?
It's okay they are different.
The marriage concept does evolve,Hallelujah! You finally see the light. That's a quantum leap in all our discussion on this subject so far. You should be commended for making this first step in acknowledging this historical fact.
but within the context of being between a man and a women.Wrong. It had been between a man and his multiple concubines, or more precisely, his properties.
Humm. See my response 8 lines above.You keep extrapolating on the "interracial' and "race" difference, and ignored this fact.That's called making a logic inference from an analogy, which seems to have still remained a mystery to you.
Gay relationships on the surface may look "similar" to the traditional marriage, as claimed, both are "two people in love with each other and want to build a family", and they may even have a baby with help of modern medicine. Yet how each arrives at this relationship is different and have different consequences. The gay relationship is not "self-sustainable".What "self-sustainable"? Didn't you forget you just said they can reproduce with the help of modern medicine? And if that's the argument, are you gonna deny marriage to heterosexual couples who don't wnat to have children?
This difference, put in the context of traditional marriage, is much more significant than the claimed "interracial" or "genetically different individual".I see your progress: at least you abandoned your "genetic difference" argument you put forth just yeaterday. Let's hear some new argument after my rebutal to your previous ones.
What do you base your definition of marriage on? Any two person who want to live together and be considered a "family"? When you take "equal but separate" out of its original context(historical southern racism), and try to fit it for advocating the gay relationship, that term needs to be looked at with a fresh eye, in its new context.The essence of the evolution of the human society is family. There are different ways to establish a family. Through marriage, or civil union.Aside from your misunderstanding about the history of marriage, the above statement is nonsensical. Again you should really think about the term "equal but separate," and think hard about what I said about logic inference.
- posted on 12/12/2008
They said imitation is the best form of flattery. When it comes to debating with somebody who has absolutely no grasp of how to use deductive reasoning to derive logic conclusions, it's down right ridiculous. When you parrot the word fallacy, you can't just simply make a pronouncement, you have to provide your reasoning too.
A quick quiz: which of the following statements contains a fallcy?
Example 1: if some definition has been changed over time, therefore it's not an inviolable truth.
Example 2: it's still an unmolested principle not subject to further change despite it's constent evolution.
Do you understand now that "fallacy" does not just fall from the sky?
And I commend you for your inventiveness by coming up with a new term: "cyclic" logic. Maybe you think it sounds sophisticated but I assure you it's not, it's called "circular logic." I've repeatedly asked you and I ask you again, which of my statements contains circular logic? Do you even know how it works? When your arguments are taken apart and logic shreded don't just flail your hands and repeat what others just said. Try to defend your arguments with something remotely resembles logic for a change will you?
And when I asked you to provide any evidence for your vile intimation that gay families corrupt minors to produce more gay people, "common sense" is all that you can mutter? "Commen sense" without science and knowledge is ignorance and supersitition. "Common sense" produced beliefs such as sun revolves around earth, or magic underwear protects you from evil spirits, which is still believed by the people of the Morman church, your hero presumably since their $10 million war chest single handedly defeated CA gay marriage?
moab wrote:
tar wrote:Contrary to what you think, marriage is a sacred cow, as evidenced by the huge support it gets from the voters. Yes it appeared to be a "marginal" win in number, yet keep in mind this happened in the most liberal state. You need to pay attention to what people think from out side of the extreme left. Your logic that since the definition of marriage has evolved in the past warrants a drastic change today is, by your very own definition, a fallacy.
No, you don't seem to be able to grasp the idea that marriage is not a secred cow. Contrary to popular belief, it is not cast on the stone as God's law. It has changed from a union of multiple partners within an incestrous tribe to become a monogamous all inclusive contract between a man and a woman, for now. But once the definition can be changed, then there is no reason to say we should stick to what is currently defined. New proposition: extend the definition to between two human beings, regardless of gender.
Now let's examine your objections so far. You first proposed that becuase of the difference of genetic makeup between the gays and the heterosexuals, they should be categorized into a different species just like bats and birds are different species. (Regardless who brought up the idea of genetics, you are not denying that was your proposal are you?)Gay relationship and marriage, though look similar to the inadvertent eyes, are different. That's the message from that analogy. If you jump out of your cyclic "logical" thinking routine for a moment, is that that hard to see?
For reason(s) still unclear to me as to why it's relevant to the discussion of marriage, I simply pointed out that everybody has a different genetic makeup than anybody else, and from one of your previous posts, I had thought you abandoned that ridiculous idea. If you are trying to revive that idea again, come up with a more cogent reasoning then.Your thinking are too far detached for practical purposes. The fundamental difference between gay relationship and marriage is same sex vs. opposite sex. It has its evolution root, and over time social norms and religion evolved with that concept. That's a fact. And that's the context.
And then you are trying to make reproductive issue as your trump card, never mind contradicting your own words just a few sentence earlier that the modern medicine has already rendered this a moot point. (You keep busy accusing me of not paying attention to what you said but never able to give an example. I suggest you keep track of your own words lest you run the risk of being silly.)Here's the thing. Modern medicine helping make gay partners having a "child" does not change the nature of the relationship itself, that is, it's same sex. Using that for your argument, that's the real moot point.
After I pointed out your inconsistency, what did you do? You meandered all over the place and finally settled to accusing gay lifestyle's bad infleunce on kids. Do you actually have ANY example that a kid grow up in a gay family was steered to become a gay? I am not even asking you to provide a scientific study for making that claim. Any anecdote will do.It's called common sense.
Now you keep harping on the notion that previously marriage has only included heterosexual relationships therefore homosexual relationship is out. The fallacy of this circular logic is so apparent that I am astounded you can't see it. You can only provide reasons OUTSIDE of the original premise to try to prove it true or false. In the language of syllogism, you are using the same argument for both major and minor premises to derive your conclusion. Can I be more clear on this?By the same token, you've been barking on this notion of the evolution of the marriage definition. And,
Thanks to heterosexual marriages, the gay community can protect today.
Finally you repeatedly accused me of using terms out of "context." A bit of advice first, it's not an escaping chute you can use whenever you are cornered on your logic fallacy. The "equal but separate" racist battle cry is perfectly parallel to your "civil union but not marriage" idea in terms of implied prejudice. And that that phrase formed part of the basis for banning interracial marriage is very much in "context" in our discussion of gay marriage, unless you want to waltz back to your circular logic again.You ever need to declare your ethnicity? Isn't that "equal but separate" by your standard? That's your fallacy.
moab wrote:
tar wrote:? Again?
moab wrote:Who or what are differnt?
It's okay they are different.
The marriage concept does evolve,Hallelujah! You finally see the light. That's a quantum leap in all our discussion on this subject so far. You should be commended for making this first step in acknowledging this historical fact.
but within the context of being between a man and a women.Wrong. It had been between a man and his multiple concubines, or more precisely, his properties.
Humm. See my response 8 lines above.You keep extrapolating on the "interracial' and "race" difference, and ignored this fact.That's called making a logic inference from an analogy, which seems to have still remained a mystery to you.
Gay relationships on the surface may look "similar" to the traditional marriage, as claimed, both are "two people in love with each other and want to build a family", and they may even have a baby with help of modern medicine. Yet how each arrives at this relationship is different and have different consequences. The gay relationship is not "self-sustainable".What "self-sustainable"? Didn't you forget you just said they can reproduce with the help of modern medicine? And if that's the argument, are you gonna deny marriage to heterosexual couples who don't wnat to have children?
This difference, put in the context of traditional marriage, is much more significant than the claimed "interracial" or "genetically different individual".I see your progress: at least you abandoned your "genetic difference" argument you put forth just yeaterday. Let's hear some new argument after my rebutal to your previous ones.
What do you base your definition of marriage on? Any two person who want to live together and be considered a "family"? When you take "equal but separate" out of its original context(historical southern racism), and try to fit it for advocating the gay relationship, that term needs to be looked at with a fresh eye, in its new context.The essence of the evolution of the human society is family. There are different ways to establish a family. Through marriage, or civil union.Aside from your misunderstanding about the history of marriage, the above statement is nonsensical. Again you should really think about the term "equal but separate," and think hard about what I said about logic inference.
- posted on 12/12/2008
tar wrote:
They said imitation is the best form of flattery. When it comes to debating with somebody who has absolutely no grasp of how to use deductive reasoning to derive logic conclusions, it's down right ridiculous. When you parrot the word fallacy, you can't just simply make a pronouncement, you have to provide your reasoning too.
A quick quiz: which of the following statements contains a fallcy?
Example 1: if some definition has been changed over time, therefore it's not an inviolable truth.
Example 2: it's still an unmolested principle not subject to further change despite it's constent evolution.
Do you understand now that "fallacy" does not just fall from the sky?
You are switching the focus of the discussion. You are basically saying since definition of marriage has evolved future change is automatically warranted, because logically speaking, the definition of marriage is not "unmolested".
And I commend you for your inventiveness by coming up with a new term: "cyclic" logic. Maybe you think it sounds sophisticated but I assure you it's not, it's called "circular logic." I've repeatedly asked you and I ask you again, which of my statements contains circular logic? Do you even know how it works? When your arguments are taken apart and logic shreded don't just flail your hands and repeat what others just said. Try to defend your arguments with something remotely resembles logic for a change will you?
I am amazed this comes from someone with "cold", "logical" thinking. What's the point?
And when I asked you to provide any evidence for your vile intimation that gay families corrupt minors to produce more gay people, "common sense" is all that you can mutter? "Commen sense" without science and knowledge is ignorance and supersitition. "Common sense" produced beliefs such as sun revolves around earth, or magic underwear protects you from evil spirits, which is still believed by the people of the Morman church, your hero presumably since their $10 million war chest single handedly defeated CA gay marriage?
Did you realize "common sense" has evolved as well and now the notion is not that the Sun revolves around the Earth? It's okay to think with your logic. Make sure you stand on some solid ground.
And your comments of the Mormon Church shows your very ignorance. Christian churches supported Prop 8. Mormon is one of them. (By the way, it's spelled "Mormon"). If this support is reversed in direction you will definitely call is "for a good cause" and readily embrace them as your "hero". That's the problem of your thinking, as I mentioned since your uncalled-call "bigots" accusation of St. Dude. This is very typical behavior of the extreme left.
moab wrote:
tar wrote:Contrary to what you think, marriage is a sacred cow, as evidenced by the huge support it gets from the voters. Yes it appeared to be a "marginal" win in number, yet keep in mind this happened in the most liberal state. You need to pay attention to what people think from out side of the extreme left. Your logic that since the definition of marriage has evolved in the past warrants a drastic change today is, by your very own definition, a fallacy.
No, you don't seem to be able to grasp the idea that marriage is not a secred cow. Contrary to popular belief, it is not cast on the stone as God's law. It has changed from a union of multiple partners within an incestrous tribe to become a monogamous all inclusive contract between a man and a woman, for now. But once the definition can be changed, then there is no reason to say we should stick to what is currently defined. New proposition: extend the definition to between two human beings, regardless of gender.
Now let's examine your objections so far. You first proposed that becuase of the difference of genetic makeup between the gays and the heterosexuals, they should be categorized into a different species just like bats and birds are different species. (Regardless who brought up the idea of genetics, you are not denying that was your proposal are you?)Gay relationship and marriage, though look similar to the inadvertent eyes, are different. That's the message from that analogy. If you jump out of your cyclic "logical" thinking routine for a moment, is that that hard to see?
For reason(s) still unclear to me as to why it's relevant to the discussion of marriage, I simply pointed out that everybody has a different genetic makeup than anybody else, and from one of your previous posts, I had thought you abandoned that ridiculous idea. If you are trying to revive that idea again, come up with a more cogent reasoning then.Your thinking are too far detached for practical purposes. The fundamental difference between gay relationship and marriage is same sex vs. opposite sex. It has its evolution root, and over time social norms and religion evolved with that concept. That's a fact. And that's the context.
And then you are trying to make reproductive issue as your trump card, never mind contradicting your own words just a few sentence earlier that the modern medicine has already rendered this a moot point. (You keep busy accusing me of not paying attention to what you said but never able to give an example. I suggest you keep track of your own words lest you run the risk of being silly.)Here's the thing. Modern medicine helping make gay partners having a "child" does not change the nature of the relationship itself, that is, it's same sex. Using that for your argument, that's the real moot point.
After I pointed out your inconsistency, what did you do? You meandered all over the place and finally settled to accusing gay lifestyle's bad infleunce on kids. Do you actually have ANY example that a kid grow up in a gay family was steered to become a gay? I am not even asking you to provide a scientific study for making that claim. Any anecdote will do.It's called common sense.
Now you keep harping on the notion that previously marriage has only included heterosexual relationships therefore homosexual relationship is out. The fallacy of this circular logic is so apparent that I am astounded you can't see it. You can only provide reasons OUTSIDE of the original premise to try to prove it true or false. In the language of syllogism, you are using the same argument for both major and minor premises to derive your conclusion. Can I be more clear on this?By the same token, you've been barking on this notion of the evolution of the marriage definition. And,
Thanks to heterosexual marriages, the gay community can protect today.
Finally you repeatedly accused me of using terms out of "context." A bit of advice first, it's not an escaping chute you can use whenever you are cornered on your logic fallacy. The "equal but separate" racist battle cry is perfectly parallel to your "civil union but not marriage" idea in terms of implied prejudice. And that that phrase formed part of the basis for banning interracial marriage is very much in "context" in our discussion of gay marriage, unless you want to waltz back to your circular logic again.You ever need to declare your ethnicity? Isn't that "equal but separate" by your standard? That's your fallacy.
moab wrote:
tar wrote:? Again?
moab wrote:Who or what are differnt?
It's okay they are different.
The marriage concept does evolve,Hallelujah! You finally see the light. That's a quantum leap in all our discussion on this subject so far. You should be commended for making this first step in acknowledging this historical fact.
but within the context of being between a man and a women.Wrong. It had been between a man and his multiple concubines, or more precisely, his properties.
Humm. See my response 8 lines above.You keep extrapolating on the "interracial' and "race" difference, and ignored this fact.That's called making a logic inference from an analogy, which seems to have still remained a mystery to you.
Gay relationships on the surface may look "similar" to the traditional marriage, as claimed, both are "two people in love with each other and want to build a family", and they may even have a baby with help of modern medicine. Yet how each arrives at this relationship is different and have different consequences. The gay relationship is not "self-sustainable".What "self-sustainable"? Didn't you forget you just said they can reproduce with the help of modern medicine? And if that's the argument, are you gonna deny marriage to heterosexual couples who don't wnat to have children?
This difference, put in the context of traditional marriage, is much more significant than the claimed "interracial" or "genetically different individual".I see your progress: at least you abandoned your "genetic difference" argument you put forth just yeaterday. Let's hear some new argument after my rebutal to your previous ones.
What do you base your definition of marriage on? Any two person who want to live together and be considered a "family"? When you take "equal but separate" out of its original context(historical southern racism), and try to fit it for advocating the gay relationship, that term needs to be looked at with a fresh eye, in its new context.The essence of the evolution of the human society is family. There are different ways to establish a family. Through marriage, or civil union.Aside from your misunderstanding about the history of marriage, the above statement is nonsensical. Again you should really think about the term "equal but separate," and think hard about what I said about logic inference.
- posted on 12/12/2008
哇塞,我最怕老圣这样跟我来持久战了,细腻细致到极点。 我反对prop 8,毫无政治因素,完全是人文的同情。我觉得不让他们结婚一点都不人性。
老板娘, 你赶快速战速决地把我解决了吧. 我再细腻也没有你的针尖细. 几针扎下去就搞定了(我今天刚刚跋牙,挨一针麻醉). 你对同志的人文同情, 充满了人性,党和人民都看在眼里记在心里. 请放心,不会忘记的. 可我指的是用人文精神从人性的角度去思考理解同性恋. 是思考理解, 不是同情关怀. 而是思考理解. 我想我们这里没有必要引进东方求善精神和西方求真精神的对立. 真善都要有, 可是不能混淆.
今天结婚,明天离婚的,在异性恋中比比皆是,有数据说明同性恋的离婚率高于异性恋吗?有数据表明同性恋婚姻更加朝三暮四吗?
当然有数据支持.只是同性恋合法结合的历史太短, 即使是历史最长的西欧北欧国家(数据的来源)也不过是近10来年的事情. 所以, 这样的数据并不能说明问题. 我清楚这一点. 所以我并不把它作为反驳你的理由.我主要是sarcastic, 给你的热情泼冷水.
sand原来是女权小资啊,真的不知道,是CND的文友?高兴。
我又sarcastic一下, 别太高兴的过于认真.
好,暂时同意你的厕所比喻,但我要问的是两边的厕所的配置一样吗?你给同性恋婚姻同样的权利,子女收养、离婚教堂同样的待遇吗?两边厕所配置不一样,我们当然要去配置高级的厕所。
你上一贴就提了很多具体问题, 我们只讨论原则. 这些具体问题最好由专家去解决. 很多国家象英国不都解决了.
很多同性恋的朋友喜欢的都是跟他们一样女性化的男人。所以你常见到两个漂亮男人走在一起,毫无疑问他们是gay。
你呀, 真糊涂啊. 我们就问问café里我们熟悉的男网友, 有哪位愿意找男性化的太太/情人, 请举手.(同样,又有哪位女网友愿意自己的丈夫/情人很女性化,请站出来). 老板娘, 作为异性恋人, 我们对同性恋从感性上很难想象,象老面这样的肠胃软弱的, 看有同性恋镜头的电影,提前三天不能吃饭. 否则连呕带吐,最后涂白沫. 这可以理解. 但是在逻辑上我们应该很好理解. Gay之所以是Gay, 就是因为他们是男人的身体女性的心理,他们喜欢男的. 如果他希望自己的partner女性化, 他还找男的干什么? 直接去找个女的不就完了吗?
注意: 我这里说的男性化女性化不是外貌. 而是包括personality, 精神和外貌,甚至聪明等因素综合在一起的一个package. 单纯一个外貌的话, 由于人人审美不一样, 不能准确定义出他们心中真正的女性. 比如,张三可能认为高个女孩太男性,对他没有吸引力, 而李四觉得高个女孩漂亮. 即使是对外貌的审美一致了, 外表也不能全面定义女性. 车上美女的一口痰就把青冈的想入非非打个粉碎.如果她再有其它不雅之举,可以让青冈呕吐. Gay是男人的身体女性的心理. 对他们吸引的是男性, 但是一个whole package的男性. 所以, 性吸引的含义是一个package, 性吸引是whole package的吸引. whole package是非常明确的, 男性package和女性package. Package里的各种元素作用在每一个人身上是不同的, 很难概括. 这对同性和异性都成立. 所以, 你看到两个漂亮男人走在一起(我们就假设他们是Gay),你只看到了一点, 一个元素. 而不是whole package. 他们喜欢对方的whole package绝对是男性package. 问题在于, 他们追求的具有真正的男性whole package的人, 喜欢的是女人. 这是他们的dilemma.
同样的, 我们会经常看到有些男同性恋人伴侣的一男一女的打扮.我不知道为什么. 也许想要向社会表明点什么,也许让自己纳入社会主流的风俗习惯, 但绝不会说明一个男同性恋人喜欢一个女性化(package)的伴侣. 就象当年某些女权主义者,脱下裙子, 换上男性服装, 反叛传统妇女形象, 树立新形象一样, 无论她们向社会传递什么样的信息观念, 她们仍然是女的.
老圣,你住哪儿啊,见过多少对同性恋人啊?去纽约三藩的街上走走可能给您更多感性认识。
在乡下. 你要说我歧视同性恋, 我就说你歧视乡下人.
这点老圣又是糊涂了。同性恋人关系不稳定有几个因素,第一,社会不承认,很多人依然在closet里,他们不愿在公开场合承认自己的性取向,所以他们容易动摇朝三暮四;第二,同性恋群体是知性智性群体,一般收入高于常人,他们选择配偶非常挑剔;第三,没有婚姻的约束,他们为什么不朝秦暮楚?同性恋群体的流动、不稳定,是他们被歧视的一个明显表征。更有许多人,一见到同性恋,马上就联想到艾滋病,把他们当作性病传播者,简直跟见到麻风病人一样。
让我先搞清你的意思. 我原来的观点是同性恋自身的dilemma决定了他们commitment的意识没有异性恋强. 你的回答是, 你承认他们的commitment没有异性恋强,但是你把它归结为第一点: 社会不承认, 第二点: 高收入的知智群体, 挑剔, 第三点: 没有婚姻的约束
第一,三点可以归结为社会原因. 第二点你的前提是凡是高收入的知性智性群体,包括异性恋的同一阶层在内, 都比较挑剔, 所以不容易一定终身. 如果社会状况改变, 第一和第三因素就会消失. 到那时候, 按照你的说法, 同性恋的commitment的认识和婚姻数量应该和异性恋的高收入的知智群体大约一致. 对吧?
我想, 最终证明你的看法是否正确, 要等以后的调查结果出来. 目前已经有的调查结果都是在对同性恋十分宽容的欧洲和加拿大. 可以告诉你, 那里的同性恋结婚率非常非常低. 你先看看这份报告. http://www.marriagedebate.com/pdf/imapp.demandforssm.pdf 当然, 你可以辩护说, 也正象我上面说的, 现在任何有关同性恋结婚率/离婚率的报告还带有时代的局限性. 但是, 如果以后每隔5年10年的新的报告出来的数据都和它比较一致, 可以说明你的看法不正确.
老圣,我接触的同性恋、畸恋、虐恋的例子我想比您多,您最好还是先了解这个群体再发表看法。
我接触的女人比你多.可女人至今让我不可思议. 你能说我比你更了解女人吗? 道理就在这里. 光多接触有什么用, 要知心才行.见识,见识, 不仅见,更重要的还要认识.
玛雅 wrote:
今天有空,先逮着老圣来扎针。性别研究是个很大的题目,文章介绍到处都有。我不是专家,但看到咖啡里诸多咖啡友对同性恋的了解如此谬误,不得不再多解释一下。还是逐段来吧。
- posted on 12/12/2008
Example 1: if some definition has been changed over time, therefore it's not an inviolable truth.
Example 2: it's still an unmolested principle not subject to further change despite it's constent evolution.
Forget about your idealogy, just tell me which of the two statements contains a logic fallacy?
And when I asked you to defend your arguments with logic, "what's the point" is your answer? I am seriously questioning "what's the point" of this whole exercise. ;-)
And no, "common sense" can never determine the sun is not revolving around earth. Only through science we LEARN that is the case.
When you talk about bigots, what do you call people with bigotry? And instead of evidence I asked you to provide when you call me names, you just throw out "extreme left" with your "huge support" but "marginal" win? Can you not show more contradiction about what you are gonna say?
BTW, are we supposed to criticize each others spelling and grammar from now on? I am not sure this is road you want to travel in my opinion.
moab wrote:
tar wrote:You are switching the focus of the discussion. You are basically saying since definition of marriage has evolved future change is automatically warranted, because logically speaking, the definition of marriage is not "unmolested".
They said imitation is the best form of flattery. When it comes to debating with somebody who has absolutely no grasp of how to use deductive reasoning to derive logic conclusions, it's down right ridiculous. When you parrot the word fallacy, you can't just simply make a pronouncement, you have to provide your reasoning too.
A quick quiz: which of the following statements contains a fallcy?
Example 1: if some definition has been changed over time, therefore it's not an inviolable truth.
Example 2: it's still an unmolested principle not subject to further change despite it's constent evolution.
Do you understand now that "fallacy" does not just fall from the sky?
And I commend you for your inventiveness by coming up with a new term: "cyclic" logic. Maybe you think it sounds sophisticated but I assure you it's not, it's called "circular logic." I've repeatedly asked you and I ask you again, which of my statements contains circular logic? Do you even know how it works? When your arguments are taken apart and logic shreded don't just flail your hands and repeat what others just said. Try to defend your arguments with something remotely resembles logic for a change will you?I am amazed this comes from someone with "cold", "logical" thinking. What's the point?
And when I asked you to provide any evidence for your vile intimation that gay families corrupt minors to produce more gay people, "common sense" is all that you can mutter? "Commen sense" without science and knowledge is ignorance and supersitition. "Common sense" produced beliefs such as sun revolves around earth, or magic underwear protects you from evil spirits, which is still believed by the people of the Morman church, your hero presumably since their $10 million war chest single handedly defeated CA gay marriage?Did you realize "common sense" has evolved as well and now the notion is not that the Sun revolves around the Earth? It's okay to think with your logic. Make sure you stand on some solid ground.
And your comments of the Mormon Church shows your very ignorance. Christian churches supported Prop 8. Mormon is one of them. (By the way, it's spelled "Mormon"). If this support is reversed in direction you will definitely call is "for a good cause" and readily embrace them as your "hero". That's the problem of your thinking, as I mentioned since your uncalled-call "bigots" accusation of St. Dude. This is very typical behavior of the extreme left.
moab wrote:
tar wrote:Contrary to what you think, marriage is a sacred cow, as evidenced by the huge support it gets from the voters. Yes it appeared to be a "marginal" win in number, yet keep in mind this happened in the most liberal state. You need to pay attention to what people think from out side of the extreme left. Your logic that since the definition of marriage has evolved in the past warrants a drastic change today is, by your very own definition, a fallacy.
No, you don't seem to be able to grasp the idea that marriage is not a secred cow. Contrary to popular belief, it is not cast on the stone as God's law. It has changed from a union of multiple partners within an incestrous tribe to become a monogamous all inclusive contract between a man and a woman, for now. But once the definition can be changed, then there is no reason to say we should stick to what is currently defined. New proposition: extend the definition to between two human beings, regardless of gender.
Now let's examine your objections so far. You first proposed that becuase of the difference of genetic makeup between the gays and the heterosexuals, they should be categorized into a different species just like bats and birds are different species. (Regardless who brought up the idea of genetics, you are not denying that was your proposal are you?)Gay relationship and marriage, though look similar to the inadvertent eyes, are different. That's the message from that analogy. If you jump out of your cyclic "logical" thinking routine for a moment, is that that hard to see?
For reason(s) still unclear to me as to why it's relevant to the discussion of marriage, I simply pointed out that everybody has a different genetic makeup than anybody else, and from one of your previous posts, I had thought you abandoned that ridiculous idea. If you are trying to revive that idea again, come up with a more cogent reasoning then.Your thinking are too far detached for practical purposes. The fundamental difference between gay relationship and marriage is same sex vs. opposite sex. It has its evolution root, and over time social norms and religion evolved with that concept. That's a fact. And that's the context.
And then you are trying to make reproductive issue as your trump card, never mind contradicting your own words just a few sentence earlier that the modern medicine has already rendered this a moot point. (You keep busy accusing me of not paying attention to what you said but never able to give an example. I suggest you keep track of your own words lest you run the risk of being silly.)Here's the thing. Modern medicine helping make gay partners having a "child" does not change the nature of the relationship itself, that is, it's same sex. Using that for your argument, that's the real moot point.
After I pointed out your inconsistency, what did you do? You meandered all over the place and finally settled to accusing gay lifestyle's bad infleunce on kids. Do you actually have ANY example that a kid grow up in a gay family was steered to become a gay? I am not even asking you to provide a scientific study for making that claim. Any anecdote will do.It's called common sense.
Now you keep harping on the notion that previously marriage has only included heterosexual relationships therefore homosexual relationship is out. The fallacy of this circular logic is so apparent that I am astounded you can't see it. You can only provide reasons OUTSIDE of the original premise to try to prove it true or false. In the language of syllogism, you are using the same argument for both major and minor premises to derive your conclusion. Can I be more clear on this?By the same token, you've been barking on this notion of the evolution of the marriage definition. And,
Thanks to heterosexual marriages, the gay community can protect today.
Finally you repeatedly accused me of using terms out of "context." A bit of advice first, it's not an escaping chute you can use whenever you are cornered on your logic fallacy. The "equal but separate" racist battle cry is perfectly parallel to your "civil union but not marriage" idea in terms of implied prejudice. And that that phrase formed part of the basis for banning interracial marriage is very much in "context" in our discussion of gay marriage, unless you want to waltz back to your circular logic again.You ever need to declare your ethnicity? Isn't that "equal but separate" by your standard? That's your fallacy.
moab wrote:
tar wrote:? Again?
moab wrote:Who or what are differnt?
It's okay they are different.
The marriage concept does evolve,Hallelujah! You finally see the light. That's a quantum leap in all our discussion on this subject so far. You should be commended for making this first step in acknowledging this historical fact.
but within the context of being between a man and a women.Wrong. It had been between a man and his multiple concubines, or more precisely, his properties.
Humm. See my response 8 lines above.You keep extrapolating on the "interracial' and "race" difference, and ignored this fact.That's called making a logic inference from an analogy, which seems to have still remained a mystery to you.
Gay relationships on the surface may look "similar" to the traditional marriage, as claimed, both are "two people in love with each other and want to build a family", and they may even have a baby with help of modern medicine. Yet how each arrives at this relationship is different and have different consequences. The gay relationship is not "self-sustainable".What "self-sustainable"? Didn't you forget you just said they can reproduce with the help of modern medicine? And if that's the argument, are you gonna deny marriage to heterosexual couples who don't wnat to have children?
This difference, put in the context of traditional marriage, is much more significant than the claimed "interracial" or "genetically different individual".I see your progress: at least you abandoned your "genetic difference" argument you put forth just yeaterday. Let's hear some new argument after my rebutal to your previous ones.
What do you base your definition of marriage on? Any two person who want to live together and be considered a "family"? When you take "equal but separate" out of its original context(historical southern racism), and try to fit it for advocating the gay relationship, that term needs to be looked at with a fresh eye, in its new context.The essence of the evolution of the human society is family. There are different ways to establish a family. Through marriage, or civil union.Aside from your misunderstanding about the history of marriage, the above statement is nonsensical. Again you should really think about the term "equal but separate," and think hard about what I said about logic inference.
- posted on 12/12/2008
Talking about sombody who is "full of himself." You are the one who is talking about that sacred cow of "traditional" definition of marriage or are you not? Is this another one of my "加着莫须有"? In "traditional" marriage polygamy was a norm and interracial marriage is banned and these are facts, not a "历史的联想" in your delusional mind. Mentioning many blacks who voted for prop 8 doesn't change the fact that they are the bigots on this issue, or for that matter you are one too.
这还用说, 你又在莫须有. 整个一条线有谁在提传统/'tradition, 所有人连一个字都没有提, 就是你一个人拼命在提,还有choice. 除此之外,就是bigots的帽子. 不仅是70%的黑人, 难道世界上把同性恋异性恋结合做了区别的国家的人都是bigots? 倒底是谁full of yourself. 你要是想谈自己感兴趣的东西, 没问题. 不要以这种方式介入. 别扭曲别人的意思. "咬文嚼字"的题目说的很清楚, 我的理由说的也很清楚. 我的理由和传统无关. 如果婚姻的概念没有历史,就是从今天开始,我仍然坚持要区别分开. 事实上, 你自己的第一贴已经表明知道我在说什么. 找不到反驳的理由, 不要自己想象莫须有的理由, 自己战风车.
tar wrote:
So you and a bunch of like minded bigots think it not the same, and that's your argument? Talking about sombody who is "full of himself." You are the one who is talking about that sacred cow of "traditional" definition of marriage or are you not? Is this another one of my "加着莫须有"? In "traditional" marriage polygamy was a norm and interracial marriage is banned and these are facts, not a "历史的联想" in your delusional mind. Mentioning many blacks who voted for prop 8 doesn't change the fact that they are the bigots on this issue, or for that matter you are one too.
And don't try to weasel out from your bigotry by playing semantics. You either blame the gays for their voluntary embracing of their "lifestyle" (therefore choice) or you attribute it to biological explanations which include genetic, hormonal and other chemical processes. By arguing against both, your have twisted your logic into hopeless knots but in the end, you can't have your pie and eat it too. So what is it, choice or biology? Please don't shoot off from both sides of your mouth. - posted on 12/12/2008
tar wrote:
Forget about your idealogy, just tell me which of the two statements contains a logic fallacy?Example 1: if some definition has been changed over time, therefore it's not an inviolable truth.
Example 2: it's still an unmolested principle not subject to further change despite it's constent evolution.
It's called bait and switch. You are using the alleged validity of an argument to prove the validity of the issue. How logical is that? Not very.
And when I asked you to defend your arguments with logic, "what's the point" is your answer? I am seriously questioning "what's the point" of this whole exercise. ;-)
From that paragraph all I read is blah blah. You may enjoy this exercise.
And no, "common sense" can never determine the sun is not revolving around earth. Only through science we LEARN that is the case.You are once again evading the point. You have a tendency to put the cart before the horses. (seriously).
When you talk about bigots, what do you call people with bigotry? And instead of evidence I asked you to provide when you call me names, you just throw out "extreme left" with your "huge support" but "marginal" win? Can you not show more contradiction about what you are gonna say?
BTW, are we supposed to criticize each others spelling and grammar from now on? I am not sure this is road you want to travel in my opinion.
You know the name of the game and how it's played. You spent a whole paragraph applying this trick while I only politely and briefly mentioned that. Now all of a sudden you are irritated? Remember your closing quote in your "essay"?
I can imagine arguments like this "you can't even spell the word, how valid is the argument?". No, I didn't say that and I don't agree. But you know who will.
That said, I could always use some proof-reading from someone else. So yeah, be my guest if you don't mind.
moab wrote:
tar wrote:You are switching the focus of the discussion. You are basically saying since definition of marriage has evolved future change is automatically warranted, because logically speaking, the definition of marriage is not "unmolested".
They said imitation is the best form of flattery. When it comes to debating with somebody who has absolutely no grasp of how to use deductive reasoning to derive logic conclusions, it's down right ridiculous. When you parrot the word fallacy, you can't just simply make a pronouncement, you have to provide your reasoning too.
A quick quiz: which of the following statements contains a fallcy?
Example 1: if some definition has been changed over time, therefore it's not an inviolable truth.
Example 2: it's still an unmolested principle not subject to further change despite it's constent evolution.
Do you understand now that "fallacy" does not just fall from the sky?
And I commend you for your inventiveness by coming up with a new term: "cyclic" logic. Maybe you think it sounds sophisticated but I assure you it's not, it's called "circular logic." I've repeatedly asked you and I ask you again, which of my statements contains circular logic? Do you even know how it works? When your arguments are taken apart and logic shreded don't just flail your hands and repeat what others just said. Try to defend your arguments with something remotely resembles logic for a change will you?I am amazed this comes from someone with "cold", "logical" thinking. What's the point?
And when I asked you to provide any evidence for your vile intimation that gay families corrupt minors to produce more gay people, "common sense" is all that you can mutter? "Commen sense" without science and knowledge is ignorance and supersitition. "Common sense" produced beliefs such as sun revolves around earth, or magic underwear protects you from evil spirits, which is still believed by the people of the Morman church, your hero presumably since their $10 million war chest single handedly defeated CA gay marriage?Did you realize "common sense" has evolved as well and now the notion is not that the Sun revolves around the Earth? It's okay to think with your logic. Make sure you stand on some solid ground.
And your comments of the Mormon Church shows your very ignorance. Christian churches supported Prop 8. Mormon is one of them. (By the way, it's spelled "Mormon"). If this support is reversed in direction you will definitely call is "for a good cause" and readily embrace them as your "hero". That's the problem of your thinking, as I mentioned since your uncalled-call "bigots" accusation of St. Dude. This is very typical behavior of the extreme left.
moab wrote:
tar wrote:Contrary to what you think, marriage is a sacred cow, as evidenced by the huge support it gets from the voters. Yes it appeared to be a "marginal" win in number, yet keep in mind this happened in the most liberal state. You need to pay attention to what people think from out side of the extreme left. Your logic that since the definition of marriage has evolved in the past warrants a drastic change today is, by your very own definition, a fallacy.
No, you don't seem to be able to grasp the idea that marriage is not a secred cow. Contrary to popular belief, it is not cast on the stone as God's law. It has changed from a union of multiple partners within an incestrous tribe to become a monogamous all inclusive contract between a man and a woman, for now. But once the definition can be changed, then there is no reason to say we should stick to what is currently defined. New proposition: extend the definition to between two human beings, regardless of gender.
Now let's examine your objections so far. You first proposed that becuase of the difference of genetic makeup between the gays and the heterosexuals, they should be categorized into a different species just like bats and birds are different species. (Regardless who brought up the idea of genetics, you are not denying that was your proposal are you?)Gay relationship and marriage, though look similar to the inadvertent eyes, are different. That's the message from that analogy. If you jump out of your cyclic "logical" thinking routine for a moment, is that that hard to see?
For reason(s) still unclear to me as to why it's relevant to the discussion of marriage, I simply pointed out that everybody has a different genetic makeup than anybody else, and from one of your previous posts, I had thought you abandoned that ridiculous idea. If you are trying to revive that idea again, come up with a more cogent reasoning then.Your thinking are too far detached for practical purposes. The fundamental difference between gay relationship and marriage is same sex vs. opposite sex. It has its evolution root, and over time social norms and religion evolved with that concept. That's a fact. And that's the context.
And then you are trying to make reproductive issue as your trump card, never mind contradicting your own words just a few sentence earlier that the modern medicine has already rendered this a moot point. (You keep busy accusing me of not paying attention to what you said but never able to give an example. I suggest you keep track of your own words lest you run the risk of being silly.)Here's the thing. Modern medicine helping make gay partners having a "child" does not change the nature of the relationship itself, that is, it's same sex. Using that for your argument, that's the real moot point.
After I pointed out your inconsistency, what did you do? You meandered all over the place and finally settled to accusing gay lifestyle's bad infleunce on kids. Do you actually have ANY example that a kid grow up in a gay family was steered to become a gay? I am not even asking you to provide a scientific study for making that claim. Any anecdote will do.It's called common sense.
Now you keep harping on the notion that previously marriage has only included heterosexual relationships therefore homosexual relationship is out. The fallacy of this circular logic is so apparent that I am astounded you can't see it. You can only provide reasons OUTSIDE of the original premise to try to prove it true or false. In the language of syllogism, you are using the same argument for both major and minor premises to derive your conclusion. Can I be more clear on this?By the same token, you've been barking on this notion of the evolution of the marriage definition. And,
Thanks to heterosexual marriages, the gay community can protect today.
Finally you repeatedly accused me of using terms out of "context." A bit of advice first, it's not an escaping chute you can use whenever you are cornered on your logic fallacy. The "equal but separate" racist battle cry is perfectly parallel to your "civil union but not marriage" idea in terms of implied prejudice. And that that phrase formed part of the basis for banning interracial marriage is very much in "context" in our discussion of gay marriage, unless you want to waltz back to your circular logic again.You ever need to declare your ethnicity? Isn't that "equal but separate" by your standard? That's your fallacy.
moab wrote:
tar wrote:? Again?
moab wrote:Who or what are differnt?
It's okay they are different.
The marriage concept does evolve,Hallelujah! You finally see the light. That's a quantum leap in all our discussion on this subject so far. You should be commended for making this first step in acknowledging this historical fact.
but within the context of being between a man and a women.Wrong. It had been between a man and his multiple concubines, or more precisely, his properties.
Humm. See my response 8 lines above.You keep extrapolating on the "interracial' and "race" difference, and ignored this fact.That's called making a logic inference from an analogy, which seems to have still remained a mystery to you.
Gay relationships on the surface may look "similar" to the traditional marriage, as claimed, both are "two people in love with each other and want to build a family", and they may even have a baby with help of modern medicine. Yet how each arrives at this relationship is different and have different consequences. The gay relationship is not "self-sustainable".What "self-sustainable"? Didn't you forget you just said they can reproduce with the help of modern medicine? And if that's the argument, are you gonna deny marriage to heterosexual couples who don't wnat to have children?
This difference, put in the context of traditional marriage, is much more significant than the claimed "interracial" or "genetically different individual".I see your progress: at least you abandoned your "genetic difference" argument you put forth just yeaterday. Let's hear some new argument after my rebutal to your previous ones.
What do you base your definition of marriage on? Any two person who want to live together and be considered a "family"? When you take "equal but separate" out of its original context(historical southern racism), and try to fit it for advocating the gay relationship, that term needs to be looked at with a fresh eye, in its new context.The essence of the evolution of the human society is family. There are different ways to establish a family. Through marriage, or civil union.Aside from your misunderstanding about the history of marriage, the above statement is nonsensical. Again you should really think about the term "equal but separate," and think hard about what I said about logic inference.
- posted on 12/12/2008
This is what you said at the very begining of this thread:
其实我个人觉得moab把观点说的很清楚了. 反正我一看就懂了. 关键的问题就是在婚姻这个名称上.
And moab's main argument is this "traditional" argument, which he has espoused all over the place. But in this thread, his only other post before the aforementioned quote of yours is this oblique reference of "affective error" or some "subtlety" only existed in his own mind. Unless you can explain what he meant by that, what else you agreed with his point that doesn't involve "tradition"?
As far as bigots are concerned, it's no use to hide behind 70% of blacks who voted for prop 8. If you espouse bigotry like pronouncing them biologically and sociologically "not normal" without any scientific evidence, you ARE a bigot. Just get used to it.
st dude wrote:
Talking about sombody who is "full of himself." You are the one who is talking about that sacred cow of "traditional" definition of marriage or are you not? Is this another one of my "加着莫须有"? In "traditional" marriage polygamy was a norm and interracial marriage is banned and these are facts, not a "历史的联想" in your delusional mind. Mentioning many blacks who voted for prop 8 doesn't change the fact that they are the bigots on this issue, or for that matter you are one too.这还用说, 你又在莫须有. 整个一条线有谁在提传统/'tradition, 所有人连一个字都没有提, 就是你一个人拼命在提,还有choice. 除此之外,就是bigots的帽子. 不仅是70%的黑人, 难道世界上把同性恋异性恋结合做了区别的国家的人都是bigots? 倒底是谁full of yourself. 你要是想谈自己感兴趣的东西, 没问题. 不要以这种方式介入. 别扭曲别人的意思. "咬文嚼字"的题目说的很清楚, 我的理由说的也很清楚. 我的理由和传统无关. 如果婚姻的概念没有历史,就是从今天开始,我仍然坚持要区别分开. 事实上, 你自己的第一贴已经表明知道我在说什么. 找不到反驳的理由, 不要自己想象莫须有的理由, 自己战风车.
tar wrote:
So you and a bunch of like minded bigots think it not the same, and that's your argument? Talking about sombody who is "full of himself." You are the one who is talking about that sacred cow of "traditional" definition of marriage or are you not? Is this another one of my "加着莫须有"? In "traditional" marriage polygamy was a norm and interracial marriage is banned and these are facts, not a "历史的联想" in your delusional mind. Mentioning many blacks who voted for prop 8 doesn't change the fact that they are the bigots on this issue, or for that matter you are one too.
And don't try to weasel out from your bigotry by playing semantics. You either blame the gays for their voluntary embracing of their "lifestyle" (therefore choice) or you attribute it to biological explanations which include genetic, hormonal and other chemical processes. By arguing against both, your have twisted your logic into hopeless knots but in the end, you can't have your pie and eat it too. So what is it, choice or biology? Please don't shoot off from both sides of your mouth. - posted on 12/12/2008
You are switching the focus of the discussion. You are basically saying since definition of marriage has evolved future change is automatically warranted, because logically speaking, the definition of marriage is not "unmolested".
This is a direct quote from your answer the first time around. Can you tell us where did I change "focus" and where is the "bait"? Are we NOT talking about marriage definition and whether it can be changed or not? And yes I am using logic argument to prove my stand on an issue is correct, which again seems an alien concept to you.
Furthermore, when pinned down logically, you have time and again thrown the dice and randomly picked a homily from your Catch Phrase for Dummy handbook that has absolutely no connection to what we are discussing. When I again discredited your claim that a "new common sense" can tell you that the earth revolves around the sun, what point was I evading? And which one is the cart and what is the horse behind it?
Now I don't know what game you are talking about playing, but instead of concentrating on my misspelling a word or two, paying more attention to maybe using logic in your argument can pay off more handsomely? As for asking somebody to proofread, I think that's always a good idea so something like this gem "uncalled-call" doesn't slip through unnoticed.
moab wrote:
tar wrote:It's called bait and switch. You are using the alleged validity of an argument to prove the validity of the issue. How logical is that? Not very.
Forget about your idealogy, just tell me which of the two statements contains a logic fallacy?Example 1: if some definition has been changed over time, therefore it's not an inviolable truth.
Example 2: it's still an unmolested principle not subject to further change despite it's constent evolution.
And when I asked you to defend your arguments with logic, "what's the point" is your answer? I am seriously questioning "what's the point" of this whole exercise. ;-)From that paragraph all I read is blah blah. You may enjoy this exercise.
And no, "common sense" can never determine the sun is not revolving around earth. Only through science we LEARN that is the case.You are once again evading the point. You have a tendency to put the cart before the horses. (seriously).
When you talk about bigots, what do you call people with bigotry? And instead of evidence I asked you to provide when you call me names, you just throw out "extreme left" with your "huge support" but "marginal" win? Can you not show more contradiction about what you are gonna say?You know the name of the game and how it's played. You spent a whole paragraph applying this trick while I only politely and briefly mentioned that. Now all of a sudden you are irritated? Remember your closing quote in your "essay"?
BTW, are we supposed to criticize each others spelling and grammar from now on? I am not sure this is road you want to travel in my opinion.
I can imagine arguments like this "you can't even spell the word, how valid is the argument?". No, I didn't say that and I don't agree. But you know who will.
That said, I could always use some proof-reading from someone else. So yeah, be my guest if you don't mind.
moab wrote:
tar wrote:You are switching the focus of the discussion. You are basically saying since definition of marriage has evolved future change is automatically warranted, because logically speaking, the definition of marriage is not "unmolested".
They said imitation is the best form of flattery. When it comes to debating with somebody who has absolutely no grasp of how to use deductive reasoning to derive logic conclusions, it's down right ridiculous. When you parrot the word fallacy, you can't just simply make a pronouncement, you have to provide your reasoning too.
A quick quiz: which of the following statements contains a fallcy?
Example 1: if some definition has been changed over time, therefore it's not an inviolable truth.
Example 2: it's still an unmolested principle not subject to further change despite it's constent evolution.
Do you understand now that "fallacy" does not just fall from the sky?
And I commend you for your inventiveness by coming up with a new term: "cyclic" logic. Maybe you think it sounds sophisticated but I assure you it's not, it's called "circular logic." I've repeatedly asked you and I ask you again, which of my statements contains circular logic? Do you even know how it works? When your arguments are taken apart and logic shreded don't just flail your hands and repeat what others just said. Try to defend your arguments with something remotely resembles logic for a change will you?I am amazed this comes from someone with "cold", "logical" thinking. What's the point?
And when I asked you to provide any evidence for your vile intimation that gay families corrupt minors to produce more gay people, "common sense" is all that you can mutter? "Commen sense" without science and knowledge is ignorance and supersitition. "Common sense" produced beliefs such as sun revolves around earth, or magic underwear protects you from evil spirits, which is still believed by the people of the Morman church, your hero presumably since their $10 million war chest single handedly defeated CA gay marriage?Did you realize "common sense" has evolved as well and now the notion is not that the Sun revolves around the Earth? It's okay to think with your logic. Make sure you stand on some solid ground.
And your comments of the Mormon Church shows your very ignorance. Christian churches supported Prop 8. Mormon is one of them. (By the way, it's spelled "Mormon"). If this support is reversed in direction you will definitely call is "for a good cause" and readily embrace them as your "hero". That's the problem of your thinking, as I mentioned since your uncalled-call "bigots" accusation of St. Dude. This is very typical behavior of the extreme left.
moab wrote:
tar wrote:Contrary to what you think, marriage is a sacred cow, as evidenced by the huge support it gets from the voters. Yes it appeared to be a "marginal" win in number, yet keep in mind this happened in the most liberal state. You need to pay attention to what people think from out side of the extreme left. Your logic that since the definition of marriage has evolved in the past warrants a drastic change today is, by your very own definition, a fallacy.
No, you don't seem to be able to grasp the idea that marriage is not a secred cow. Contrary to popular belief, it is not cast on the stone as God's law. It has changed from a union of multiple partners within an incestrous tribe to become a monogamous all inclusive contract between a man and a woman, for now. But once the definition can be changed, then there is no reason to say we should stick to what is currently defined. New proposition: extend the definition to between two human beings, regardless of gender.
Now let's examine your objections so far. You first proposed that becuase of the difference of genetic makeup between the gays and the heterosexuals, they should be categorized into a different species just like bats and birds are different species. (Regardless who brought up the idea of genetics, you are not denying that was your proposal are you?)Gay relationship and marriage, though look similar to the inadvertent eyes, are different. That's the message from that analogy. If you jump out of your cyclic "logical" thinking routine for a moment, is that that hard to see?
For reason(s) still unclear to me as to why it's relevant to the discussion of marriage, I simply pointed out that everybody has a different genetic makeup than anybody else, and from one of your previous posts, I had thought you abandoned that ridiculous idea. If you are trying to revive that idea again, come up with a more cogent reasoning then.Your thinking are too far detached for practical purposes. The fundamental difference between gay relationship and marriage is same sex vs. opposite sex. It has its evolution root, and over time social norms and religion evolved with that concept. That's a fact. And that's the context.
And then you are trying to make reproductive issue as your trump card, never mind contradicting your own words just a few sentence earlier that the modern medicine has already rendered this a moot point. (You keep busy accusing me of not paying attention to what you said but never able to give an example. I suggest you keep track of your own words lest you run the risk of being silly.)Here's the thing. Modern medicine helping make gay partners having a "child" does not change the nature of the relationship itself, that is, it's same sex. Using that for your argument, that's the real moot point.
After I pointed out your inconsistency, what did you do? You meandered all over the place and finally settled to accusing gay lifestyle's bad infleunce on kids. Do you actually have ANY example that a kid grow up in a gay family was steered to become a gay? I am not even asking you to provide a scientific study for making that claim. Any anecdote will do.It's called common sense.
Now you keep harping on the notion that previously marriage has only included heterosexual relationships therefore homosexual relationship is out. The fallacy of this circular logic is so apparent that I am astounded you can't see it. You can only provide reasons OUTSIDE of the original premise to try to prove it true or false. In the language of syllogism, you are using the same argument for both major and minor premises to derive your conclusion. Can I be more clear on this?By the same token, you've been barking on this notion of the evolution of the marriage definition. And,
Thanks to heterosexual marriages, the gay community can protect today.
Finally you repeatedly accused me of using terms out of "context." A bit of advice first, it's not an escaping chute you can use whenever you are cornered on your logic fallacy. The "equal but separate" racist battle cry is perfectly parallel to your "civil union but not marriage" idea in terms of implied prejudice. And that that phrase formed part of the basis for banning interracial marriage is very much in "context" in our discussion of gay marriage, unless you want to waltz back to your circular logic again.You ever need to declare your ethnicity? Isn't that "equal but separate" by your standard? That's your fallacy.
moab wrote:
tar wrote:? Again?
moab wrote:Who or what are differnt?
It's okay they are different.
The marriage concept does evolve,Hallelujah! You finally see the light. That's a quantum leap in all our discussion on this subject so far. You should be commended for making this first step in acknowledging this historical fact.
but within the context of being between a man and a women.Wrong. It had been between a man and his multiple concubines, or more precisely, his properties.
Humm. See my response 8 lines above.You keep extrapolating on the "interracial' and "race" difference, and ignored this fact.That's called making a logic inference from an analogy, which seems to have still remained a mystery to you.
Gay relationships on the surface may look "similar" to the traditional marriage, as claimed, both are "two people in love with each other and want to build a family", and they may even have a baby with help of modern medicine. Yet how each arrives at this relationship is different and have different consequences. The gay relationship is not "self-sustainable".What "self-sustainable"? Didn't you forget you just said they can reproduce with the help of modern medicine? And if that's the argument, are you gonna deny marriage to heterosexual couples who don't wnat to have children?
This difference, put in the context of traditional marriage, is much more significant than the claimed "interracial" or "genetically different individual".I see your progress: at least you abandoned your "genetic difference" argument you put forth just yeaterday. Let's hear some new argument after my rebutal to your previous ones.
What do you base your definition of marriage on? Any two person who want to live together and be considered a "family"? When you take "equal but separate" out of its original context(historical southern racism), and try to fit it for advocating the gay relationship, that term needs to be looked at with a fresh eye, in its new context.The essence of the evolution of the human society is family. There are different ways to establish a family. Through marriage, or civil union.Aside from your misunderstanding about the history of marriage, the above statement is nonsensical. Again you should really think about the term "equal but separate," and think hard about what I said about logic inference.
- posted on 12/13/2008
老板娘, 你赶快速战速决地把我解决了吧. 我再细腻也没有你的针尖细. 几针扎下去就搞定了(我今天刚刚跋牙,挨一针麻醉).
亲爱的老圣,您是希望我怎么解决您呢?是捆绑,还是手铐? 您是喜欢needle pain, 对吗?我特别喜欢麻醉针,一般都要求牙医给我最少4针:)我还是用圣诞大餐来惩罚您吧:)
眼前的问题很多,无法解决
可总是没什么机会,是更大的问题
我忽然碰见了你,正看着我
脑子里闪过的念头是先把你解决
明天的问题很多,可现在只是一个
我装作和你谈正经的,可被你看破
你好像无谓地笑着,还伸出了手
把我的虚伪和问题,一起接受
我的表情多么严肃,可想的是随便
我脑子里是乱七八糟,可只需要简单
我以为我隐藏的心情,没有人看见
可是你每个动作让我尴尬,但是舒坦
虽然我脑子里的问题很多
可是多不过那看不见的无穷欢乐
虽然我和你之间没有感情
可我每次吻你都要表现我的狂热
昨天我还用冷眼看这个世界
可是今天瞪着眼却看不清你
噢,我的天,我的天,新的问题
就是我和这个世界一起要被你解决
- posted on 12/13/2008
Overall I am not impressed with your so claimed "logical thinking". It's ilogical at best and unlogical from time to time.
tar wrote:
You are switching the focus of the discussion. You are basically saying since definition of marriage has evolved future change is automatically warranted, because logically speaking, the definition of marriage is not "unmolested".
This is a direct quote from your answer the first time around. Can you tell us where did I change "focus" and where is the "bait"? Are we NOT talking about marriage definition and whether it can be changed or not? And yes I am using logic argument to prove my stand on an issue is correct, which again seems an alien concept to you.Your thinking process:
Marriage has evolved in the past,
thus there's no reason its definition can not be changed again today.
This argument is valid per se, yet it does not prove or disprove the issue being discussed (should gay relationship be a valid reason to change the definition of marriage).
You think too much of yourself and failed to see the difference.
Furthermore, when pinned down logically, you have time and again thrown the dice and randomly picked a homily from your Catch Phrase for Dummy handbook that has absolutely no connection to what we are discussing. When I again discredited your claim that a "new common sense" can tell you that the earth revolves around the sun, what point was I evading? And which one is the cart and what is the horse behind it?
You used an example of "common sense" from, I don't know, 14th century in arguing its application in today's environment with its updated content. That's the fallacy of your thinking. Also, in making your arguments you tend to focus on minor details that has little, if much to do with the focus. Your "logic" is sort of like this:
Al Gore is advocating reducing carbon footprint, yet he himself travels in private jets. Thus what he is advocating must be wrong.
You see your mistakes now?
Now I don't know what game you are talking about playing, but instead of concentrating on my misspelling a word or two, paying more attention to maybe using logic in your argument can pay off more handsomely? As for asking somebody to proofread, I think that's always a good idea so something like this gem "uncalled-call" doesn't slip through unnoticed.
Tell me you don't know what I was intending to say. That makes the argument weaker? I wasn't picking on you, but typo and misspelling are different.
-I don't know about you, but my weekends are packed. Last post of the day.
moab wrote:
tar wrote:It's called bait and switch. You are using the alleged validity of an argument to prove the validity of the issue. How logical is that? Not very.
Forget about your idealogy, just tell me which of the two statements contains a logic fallacy?Example 1: if some definition has been changed over time, therefore it's not an inviolable truth.
Example 2: it's still an unmolested principle not subject to further change despite it's constent evolution.
And when I asked you to defend your arguments with logic, "what's the point" is your answer? I am seriously questioning "what's the point" of this whole exercise. ;-)From that paragraph all I read is blah blah. You may enjoy this exercise.
And no, "common sense" can never determine the sun is not revolving around earth. Only through science we LEARN that is the case.You are once again evading the point. You have a tendency to put the cart before the horses. (seriously).
When you talk about bigots, what do you call people with bigotry? And instead of evidence I asked you to provide when you call me names, you just throw out "extreme left" with your "huge support" but "marginal" win? Can you not show more contradiction about what you are gonna say?You know the name of the game and how it's played. You spent a whole paragraph applying this trick while I only politely and briefly mentioned that. Now all of a sudden you are irritated? Remember your closing quote in your "essay"?
BTW, are we supposed to criticize each others spelling and grammar from now on? I am not sure this is road you want to travel in my opinion.
I can imagine arguments like this "you can't even spell the word, how valid is the argument?". No, I didn't say that and I don't agree. But you know who will.
That said, I could always use some proof-reading from someone else. So yeah, be my guest if you don't mind.
moab wrote:
tar wrote:You are switching the focus of the discussion. You are basically saying since definition of marriage has evolved future change is automatically warranted, because logically speaking, the definition of marriage is not "unmolested".
They said imitation is the best form of flattery. When it comes to debating with somebody who has absolutely no grasp of how to use deductive reasoning to derive logic conclusions, it's down right ridiculous. When you parrot the word fallacy, you can't just simply make a pronouncement, you have to provide your reasoning too.
A quick quiz: which of the following statements contains a fallcy?
Example 1: if some definition has been changed over time, therefore it's not an inviolable truth.
Example 2: it's still an unmolested principle not subject to further change despite it's constent evolution.
Do you understand now that "fallacy" does not just fall from the sky?
And I commend you for your inventiveness by coming up with a new term: "cyclic" logic. Maybe you think it sounds sophisticated but I assure you it's not, it's called "circular logic." I've repeatedly asked you and I ask you again, which of my statements contains circular logic? Do you even know how it works? When your arguments are taken apart and logic shreded don't just flail your hands and repeat what others just said. Try to defend your arguments with something remotely resembles logic for a change will you?I am amazed this comes from someone with "cold", "logical" thinking. What's the point?
And when I asked you to provide any evidence for your vile intimation that gay families corrupt minors to produce more gay people, "common sense" is all that you can mutter? "Commen sense" without science and knowledge is ignorance and supersitition. "Common sense" produced beliefs such as sun revolves around earth, or magic underwear protects you from evil spirits, which is still believed by the people of the Morman church, your hero presumably since their $10 million war chest single handedly defeated CA gay marriage?Did you realize "common sense" has evolved as well and now the notion is not that the Sun revolves around the Earth? It's okay to think with your logic. Make sure you stand on some solid ground.
And your comments of the Mormon Church shows your very ignorance. Christian churches supported Prop 8. Mormon is one of them. (By the way, it's spelled "Mormon"). If this support is reversed in direction you will definitely call is "for a good cause" and readily embrace them as your "hero". That's the problem of your thinking, as I mentioned since your uncalled-call "bigots" accusation of St. Dude. This is very typical behavior of the extreme left.
moab wrote:
tar wrote:Contrary to what you think, marriage is a sacred cow, as evidenced by the huge support it gets from the voters. Yes it appeared to be a "marginal" win in number, yet keep in mind this happened in the most liberal state. You need to pay attention to what people think from out side of the extreme left. Your logic that since the definition of marriage has evolved in the past warrants a drastic change today is, by your very own definition, a fallacy.
No, you don't seem to be able to grasp the idea that marriage is not a secred cow. Contrary to popular belief, it is not cast on the stone as God's law. It has changed from a union of multiple partners within an incestrous tribe to become a monogamous all inclusive contract between a man and a woman, for now. But once the definition can be changed, then there is no reason to say we should stick to what is currently defined. New proposition: extend the definition to between two human beings, regardless of gender.
Now let's examine your objections so far. You first proposed that becuase of the difference of genetic makeup between the gays and the heterosexuals, they should be categorized into a different species just like bats and birds are different species. (Regardless who brought up the idea of genetics, you are not denying that was your proposal are you?)Gay relationship and marriage, though look similar to the inadvertent eyes, are different. That's the message from that analogy. If you jump out of your cyclic "logical" thinking routine for a moment, is that that hard to see?
For reason(s) still unclear to me as to why it's relevant to the discussion of marriage, I simply pointed out that everybody has a different genetic makeup than anybody else, and from one of your previous posts, I had thought you abandoned that ridiculous idea. If you are trying to revive that idea again, come up with a more cogent reasoning then.Your thinking are too far detached for practical purposes. The fundamental difference between gay relationship and marriage is same sex vs. opposite sex. It has its evolution root, and over time social norms and religion evolved with that concept. That's a fact. And that's the context.
And then you are trying to make reproductive issue as your trump card, never mind contradicting your own words just a few sentence earlier that the modern medicine has already rendered this a moot point. (You keep busy accusing me of not paying attention to what you said but never able to give an example. I suggest you keep track of your own words lest you run the risk of being silly.)Here's the thing. Modern medicine helping make gay partners having a "child" does not change the nature of the relationship itself, that is, it's same sex. Using that for your argument, that's the real moot point.
After I pointed out your inconsistency, what did you do? You meandered all over the place and finally settled to accusing gay lifestyle's bad infleunce on kids. Do you actually have ANY example that a kid grow up in a gay family was steered to become a gay? I am not even asking you to provide a scientific study for making that claim. Any anecdote will do.It's called common sense.
Now you keep harping on the notion that previously marriage has only included heterosexual relationships therefore homosexual relationship is out. The fallacy of this circular logic is so apparent that I am astounded you can't see it. You can only provide reasons OUTSIDE of the original premise to try to prove it true or false. In the language of syllogism, you are using the same argument for both major and minor premises to derive your conclusion. Can I be more clear on this?By the same token, you've been barking on this notion of the evolution of the marriage definition. And,
Thanks to heterosexual marriages, the gay community can protect today.
Finally you repeatedly accused me of using terms out of "context." A bit of advice first, it's not an escaping chute you can use whenever you are cornered on your logic fallacy. The "equal but separate" racist battle cry is perfectly parallel to your "civil union but not marriage" idea in terms of implied prejudice. And that that phrase formed part of the basis for banning interracial marriage is very much in "context" in our discussion of gay marriage, unless you want to waltz back to your circular logic again.You ever need to declare your ethnicity? Isn't that "equal but separate" by your standard? That's your fallacy.
moab wrote:
tar wrote:? Again?
moab wrote:Who or what are differnt?
It's okay they are different.
The marriage concept does evolve,Hallelujah! You finally see the light. That's a quantum leap in all our discussion on this subject so far. You should be commended for making this first step in acknowledging this historical fact.
but within the context of being between a man and a women.Wrong. It had been between a man and his multiple concubines, or more precisely, his properties.
Humm. See my response 8 lines above.You keep extrapolating on the "interracial' and "race" difference, and ignored this fact.That's called making a logic inference from an analogy, which seems to have still remained a mystery to you.
Gay relationships on the surface may look "similar" to the traditional marriage, as claimed, both are "two people in love with each other and want to build a family", and they may even have a baby with help of modern medicine. Yet how each arrives at this relationship is different and have different consequences. The gay relationship is not "self-sustainable".What "self-sustainable"? Didn't you forget you just said they can reproduce with the help of modern medicine? And if that's the argument, are you gonna deny marriage to heterosexual couples who don't wnat to have children?
This difference, put in the context of traditional marriage, is much more significant than the claimed "interracial" or "genetically different individual".I see your progress: at least you abandoned your "genetic difference" argument you put forth just yeaterday. Let's hear some new argument after my rebutal to your previous ones.
What do you base your definition of marriage on? Any two person who want to live together and be considered a "family"? When you take "equal but separate" out of its original context(historical southern racism), and try to fit it for advocating the gay relationship, that term needs to be looked at with a fresh eye, in its new context.The essence of the evolution of the human society is family. There are different ways to establish a family. Through marriage, or civil union.Aside from your misunderstanding about the history of marriage, the above statement is nonsensical. Again you should really think about the term "equal but separate," and think hard about what I said about logic inference.
- posted on 12/13/2008
今天下午休闲,就到Lincoln Plaza影院看了一场叫Milk的电影。
也是时间巧合吧。每小时一场,胜过发烧九一一,加州的大事纽约声
援?gay activist Harvey Milk。Pro 6 - 也不知道什么意思。
这里是电影的Review,也是同性恋者的民权运动的先声:)
While not up there in the annals of transformation with Robert De Niro’s poundage or Daniel Day-Lewis’s palsy, Sean Penn’s smile lines in Milk are a wonder. They’re not crinkles, they’re furrows; they seem to stretch all the way down to his soul. As the gay activist Harvey Milk, who was shot to death in 1978 along with the San Francisco mayor, George Moscone, the volatile Penn is unprecedentedly giddy. There’s anger in his Milk, but it never festers—it’s instantly channeled into political action. In the tedious remake of All the King’s Men, Penn went in for Method-y pauses in the scenes of Willie Stark finding his soapbox voice: He seemed too inward an actor to play a natural rabble-rouser. But as Milk, he shakes off Method self-attention the way Milk shook off the shame of being gay. As the personal becomes political, he opens all the windows and gets visibly high on the breeze.
Milk is a hagiography, but there’s nothing wrong with that if you believe, as director Gus Van Sant and screenwriter Dustin Lance Black obviously do, in the gospel of Harvey Milk. And queer hagiography is bracingly different from that other kind, in that it’s often, so to speak, ass-backward, the road to rebirth leading through the flesh instead of around it. There aren’t many life stories of saints in which the hero’s salvation begins with picking up a studly young Midwesterner in a New York City subway station on the eve of said hero’s 40th birthday. After their happy sex, Milk lies beside Scott Smith (James Franco) and muses on the closeted life he has lived until then. So he sets off with his new lover for San Francisco’s Castro neighborhood, for a life to be lived aboveground, in the light.
Gay writer Black grew up in a military home (whammy) that also happened to be Mormon (double whammy), and he has written episodes of HBO’s dizzying Big Love. His view of the Castro of the early seventies as a sexual Eden is heady, unsullied by post-AIDS hindsight, and Van Sant and cinematographer Harris Savides have an easy touch. There are no hallowed clinches à la Brokeback Mountain; every gay smooch doesn’t carry the weight of the world.
In the flush of all the new arrivals, the Castro is a burgeoning gay ecosystem; Milk, who has opened a camera store, fortifies its roots by singling out businesses for boycott that aren’t homo-friendly, then sets out to become the first openly gay elected officeholder in San Francisco. Lovers drift in and out, but Black and Van Sant ease them to the edge of the frame; we’re not entirely sure why Milk and Smith break off or how Milk could possibly take in a Mexican lover (Diego Luna) who is so egregiously, epically crazy.
The filmmakers don’t pry, possibly because so many people in Milk’s orbit are still around (and on the set), but more likely because they mean for Milk to be so psychologically upbeat—to inspire future activists. That’s laudable, especially now, with the passage of Proposition 8 in Milk’s old stomping grounds. But it doesn’t make for great drama. The threats are largely from the outside, from Anita Bryant and, of course, Milk’s murderer, uptight fellow supervisor Dan White (Josh Brolin with a bowl haircut). Milk refers to him as a closet case, but it’s unclear what White is except confused (then violent), but Brolin is always busy playing something. He’s the only actor with a meaty subtext. Good as Penn is, it’s too bad he didn’t have a chance to show us Milk before his emergence—not for the same old coming-out-of-the-closet story, but because the “Before” picture (Milk among the straights) would give the “After” more weight. Milk is one of the most heartfelt portraits of a politician ever made—the man himself remains just out of reach. — David Edelstein
http://nymag.com/listings/movie/milk/
&
很高兴Jim Carry又有新电影了,YES MAN,预告一下!
- posted on 12/13/2008
I told you before, the day people of your ilk start to "respect" or "impressed" with me is the day I will stop coming here. And for the last time, empty pronouncement of "ilogical" (I presume this is a typo not a misspelling? BTW, how can you tell? ;-)) doesn't mean a thing. You have to point out what is "ilogical" in my argument, no?
And finally you have to admit that my argument is valid and yet you still want to start your argument from a false one? Quick, what's the logic behind that? Answer: it's called circular logic.
The Al Gore analogy, only a hopelessly confused mind can cook up such a non sequitur and tries to use that as a rebuttal. It is not even remotely related to the common sense that without scientific knowledge and scientific instruments, you can't tell the sun is not revolving around earth, whether in 14th century or 21st century.
As far as picking on each other, you've already put on a brave face and now is not the time to back down. I am too lazy to go back on your previous posts, but from the last two, you already gave us "ilogical" and the meaning of this mental fart "uncalled-call" still remains a mystery. Stay focused, you can give us more material for a laugh. ;-)
And no need to raise a white flag for the weekend. Who sticks around here anyway?
moab wrote:
Overall I am not impressed with your so claimed "logical thinking". It's ilogical at best and unlogical from time to time.
tar wrote:Your thinking process:
This is a direct quote from your answer the first time around. Can you tell us where did I change "focus" and where is the "bait"? Are we NOT talking about marriage definition and whether it can be changed or not? And yes I am using logic argument to prove my stand on an issue is correct, which again seems an alien concept to you.You are switching the focus of the discussion. You are basically saying since definition of marriage has evolved future change is automatically warranted, because logically speaking, the definition of marriage is not "unmolested".
Marriage has evolved in the past,
thus there's no reason its definition can not be changed again today.
This argument is valid per se, yet it does not prove or disprove the issue being discussed (should gay relationship be a valid reason to change the definition of marriage).
You think too much of yourself and failed to see the difference.
Furthermore, when pinned down logically, you have time and again thrown the dice and randomly picked a homily from your Catch Phrase for Dummy handbook that has absolutely no connection to what we are discussing. When I again discredited your claim that a "new common sense" can tell you that the earth revolves around the sun, what point was I evading? And which one is the cart and what is the horse behind it?You used an example of "common sense" from, I don't know, 14th century in arguing its application in today's environment with its updated content. That's the fallacy of your thinking. Also, in making your arguments you tend to focus on minor details that has little, if much to do with the focus. Your "logic" is sort of like this:
Al Gore is advocating reducing carbon footprint, yet he himself travels in private jets. Thus what he is advocating must be wrong.
You see your mistakes now?
Now I don't know what game you are talking about playing, but instead of concentrating on my misspelling a word or two, paying more attention to maybe using logic in your argument can pay off more handsomely? As for asking somebody to proofread, I think that's always a good idea so something like this gem "uncalled-call" doesn't slip through unnoticed.Tell me you don't know what I was intending to say. That makes the argument weaker? I wasn't picking on you, but typo and misspelling are different.
-I don't know about you, but my weekends are packed. Last post of the day.
moab wrote:
tar wrote:It's called bait and switch. You are using the alleged validity of an argument to prove the validity of the issue. How logical is that? Not very.
Forget about your idealogy, just tell me which of the two statements contains a logic fallacy?Example 1: if some definition has been changed over time, therefore it's not an inviolable truth.
Example 2: it's still an unmolested principle not subject to further change despite it's constent evolution.
And when I asked you to defend your arguments with logic, "what's the point" is your answer? I am seriously questioning "what's the point" of this whole exercise. ;-)From that paragraph all I read is blah blah. You may enjoy this exercise.
And no, "common sense" can never determine the sun is not revolving around earth. Only through science we LEARN that is the case.You are once again evading the point. You have a tendency to put the cart before the horses. (seriously).
When you talk about bigots, what do you call people with bigotry? And instead of evidence I asked you to provide when you call me names, you just throw out "extreme left" with your "huge support" but "marginal" win? Can you not show more contradiction about what you are gonna say?You know the name of the game and how it's played. You spent a whole paragraph applying this trick while I only politely and briefly mentioned that. Now all of a sudden you are irritated? Remember your closing quote in your "essay"?
BTW, are we supposed to criticize each others spelling and grammar from now on? I am not sure this is road you want to travel in my opinion.
I can imagine arguments like this "you can't even spell the word, how valid is the argument?". No, I didn't say that and I don't agree. But you know who will.
That said, I could always use some proof-reading from someone else. So yeah, be my guest if you don't mind.
moab wrote:
tar wrote:You are switching the focus of the discussion. You are basically saying since definition of marriage has evolved future change is automatically warranted, because logically speaking, the definition of marriage is not "unmolested".
They said imitation is the best form of flattery. When it comes to debating with somebody who has absolutely no grasp of how to use deductive reasoning to derive logic conclusions, it's down right ridiculous. When you parrot the word fallacy, you can't just simply make a pronouncement, you have to provide your reasoning too.
A quick quiz: which of the following statements contains a fallcy?
Example 1: if some definition has been changed over time, therefore it's not an inviolable truth.
Example 2: it's still an unmolested principle not subject to further change despite it's constent evolution.
Do you understand now that "fallacy" does not just fall from the sky?
And I commend you for your inventiveness by coming up with a new term: "cyclic" logic. Maybe you think it sounds sophisticated but I assure you it's not, it's called "circular logic." I've repeatedly asked you and I ask you again, which of my statements contains circular logic? Do you even know how it works? When your arguments are taken apart and logic shreded don't just flail your hands and repeat what others just said. Try to defend your arguments with something remotely resembles logic for a change will you?I am amazed this comes from someone with "cold", "logical" thinking. What's the point?
And when I asked you to provide any evidence for your vile intimation that gay families corrupt minors to produce more gay people, "common sense" is all that you can mutter? "Commen sense" without science and knowledge is ignorance and supersitition. "Common sense" produced beliefs such as sun revolves around earth, or magic underwear protects you from evil spirits, which is still believed by the people of the Morman church, your hero presumably since their $10 million war chest single handedly defeated CA gay marriage?Did you realize "common sense" has evolved as well and now the notion is not that the Sun revolves around the Earth? It's okay to think with your logic. Make sure you stand on some solid ground.
And your comments of the Mormon Church shows your very ignorance. Christian churches supported Prop 8. Mormon is one of them. (By the way, it's spelled "Mormon"). If this support is reversed in direction you will definitely call is "for a good cause" and readily embrace them as your "hero". That's the problem of your thinking, as I mentioned since your uncalled-call "bigots" accusation of St. Dude. This is very typical behavior of the extreme left.
moab wrote:
tar wrote:Contrary to what you think, marriage is a sacred cow, as evidenced by the huge support it gets from the voters. Yes it appeared to be a "marginal" win in number, yet keep in mind this happened in the most liberal state. You need to pay attention to what people think from out side of the extreme left. Your logic that since the definition of marriage has evolved in the past warrants a drastic change today is, by your very own definition, a fallacy.
No, you don't seem to be able to grasp the idea that marriage is not a secred cow. Contrary to popular belief, it is not cast on the stone as God's law. It has changed from a union of multiple partners within an incestrous tribe to become a monogamous all inclusive contract between a man and a woman, for now. But once the definition can be changed, then there is no reason to say we should stick to what is currently defined. New proposition: extend the definition to between two human beings, regardless of gender.
Now let's examine your objections so far. You first proposed that becuase of the difference of genetic makeup between the gays and the heterosexuals, they should be categorized into a different species just like bats and birds are different species. (Regardless who brought up the idea of genetics, you are not denying that was your proposal are you?)Gay relationship and marriage, though look similar to the inadvertent eyes, are different. That's the message from that analogy. If you jump out of your cyclic "logical" thinking routine for a moment, is that that hard to see?
For reason(s) still unclear to me as to why it's relevant to the discussion of marriage, I simply pointed out that everybody has a different genetic makeup than anybody else, and from one of your previous posts, I had thought you abandoned that ridiculous idea. If you are trying to revive that idea again, come up with a more cogent reasoning then.Your thinking are too far detached for practical purposes. The fundamental difference between gay relationship and marriage is same sex vs. opposite sex. It has its evolution root, and over time social norms and religion evolved with that concept. That's a fact. And that's the context.
And then you are trying to make reproductive issue as your trump card, never mind contradicting your own words just a few sentence earlier that the modern medicine has already rendered this a moot point. (You keep busy accusing me of not paying attention to what you said but never able to give an example. I suggest you keep track of your own words lest you run the risk of being silly.)Here's the thing. Modern medicine helping make gay partners having a "child" does not change the nature of the relationship itself, that is, it's same sex. Using that for your argument, that's the real moot point.
After I pointed out your inconsistency, what did you do? You meandered all over the place and finally settled to accusing gay lifestyle's bad infleunce on kids. Do you actually have ANY example that a kid grow up in a gay family was steered to become a gay? I am not even asking you to provide a scientific study for making that claim. Any anecdote will do.It's called common sense.
Now you keep harping on the notion that previously marriage has only included heterosexual relationships therefore homosexual relationship is out. The fallacy of this circular logic is so apparent that I am astounded you can't see it. You can only provide reasons OUTSIDE of the original premise to try to prove it true or false. In the language of syllogism, you are using the same argument for both major and minor premises to derive your conclusion. Can I be more clear on this?By the same token, you've been barking on this notion of the evolution of the marriage definition. And,
Thanks to heterosexual marriages, the gay community can protect today.
Finally you repeatedly accused me of using terms out of "context." A bit of advice first, it's not an escaping chute you can use whenever you are cornered on your logic fallacy. The "equal but separate" racist battle cry is perfectly parallel to your "civil union but not marriage" idea in terms of implied prejudice. And that that phrase formed part of the basis for banning interracial marriage is very much in "context" in our discussion of gay marriage, unless you want to waltz back to your circular logic again.You ever need to declare your ethnicity? Isn't that "equal but separate" by your standard? That's your fallacy.
moab wrote:
tar wrote:? Again?
moab wrote:Who or what are differnt?
It's okay they are different.
The marriage concept does evolve,Hallelujah! You finally see the light. That's a quantum leap in all our discussion on this subject so far. You should be commended for making this first step in acknowledging this historical fact.
but within the context of being between a man and a women.Wrong. It had been between a man and his multiple concubines, or more precisely, his properties.
Humm. See my response 8 lines above.You keep extrapolating on the "interracial' and "race" difference, and ignored this fact.That's called making a logic inference from an analogy, which seems to have still remained a mystery to you.
Gay relationships on the surface may look "similar" to the traditional marriage, as claimed, both are "two people in love with each other and want to build a family", and they may even have a baby with help of modern medicine. Yet how each arrives at this relationship is different and have different consequences. The gay relationship is not "self-sustainable".What "self-sustainable"? Didn't you forget you just said they can reproduce with the help of modern medicine? And if that's the argument, are you gonna deny marriage to heterosexual couples who don't wnat to have children?
This difference, put in the context of traditional marriage, is much more significant than the claimed "interracial" or "genetically different individual".I see your progress: at least you abandoned your "genetic difference" argument you put forth just yeaterday. Let's hear some new argument after my rebutal to your previous ones.
What do you base your definition of marriage on? Any two person who want to live together and be considered a "family"? When you take "equal but separate" out of its original context(historical southern racism), and try to fit it for advocating the gay relationship, that term needs to be looked at with a fresh eye, in its new context.The essence of the evolution of the human society is family. There are different ways to establish a family. Through marriage, or civil union.Aside from your misunderstanding about the history of marriage, the above statement is nonsensical. Again you should really think about the term "equal but separate," and think hard about what I said about logic inference.
- posted on 12/13/2008
我们这儿Milk也是一个电影院两个screens在放,我很喜欢这个电影。
Prop 6 from wiki:
California Proposition 6 was an initiative on the California State ballot on November 7th 1978,[1] and was more commonly known as The Briggs Initiative. [2] Sponsored by John Briggs, a conservative state legislator from Orange County, the failed initiative would have banned gays and lesbians, and possibly anyone who supported gay rights, from working in California's public schools. The Briggs Initiative was the first failure in a conservative movement that started with the successful campaign headed by Anita Bryant and her organization Save Our Children in Dade County, Florida to repeal a local gay rights ordinance. - posted on 12/17/2008
tar wrote:
I told you before, the day people of your ilk start to "respect" or "impressed" with me is the day I will stop coming here. And for the last time, empty pronouncement of "ilogical" (I presume this is a typo not a misspelling? BTW, how can you tell? ;-)) doesn't mean a thing. You have to point out what is "ilogical" in my argument, no?
No we need to keep you coming (here). For one, I like to hear different opinions. And it's a plus if those are articulately expressed. I got the impression from your essay that your writing left something to be desired, despite your command at the language.
And finally you have to admit that my argument is valid and yet you still want to start your argument from a false one? Quick, what's the logic behind that? Answer: it's called circular logic.What argument is valid? Definition of marriage has evolved before and thus automatically warrants to be redefined to include gay relationship? Is that so?
The Al Gore analogy, only a hopelessly confused mind can cook up such a non sequitur and tries to use that as a rebuttal. It is not even remotely related to the common sense that without scientific knowledge and scientific instruments, you can't tell the sun is not revolving around earth, whether in 14th century or 21st century.
Right. The common sense today, enriched by the "scientific knowledge and scientific instruments", is that the earth is evolving around the sun. As I said, you can't use yesterday's common sense in today's arguments.
Speaking of which, if you can't think of a common sense scenario, try this, would you raise you kids in a neighborhood full of drug dealers and prostitutes? Kids learn from their environment. That's common sense. Applying this to comparable situations, it's called induction.
As far as picking on each other, you've already put on a brave face and now is not the time to back down. I am too lazy to go back on your previous posts, but from the last two, you already gave us "ilogical" and the meaning of this mental fart "uncalled-call" still remains a mystery. Stay focused, you can give us more material for a laugh. ;-)
The difference is, uncalled-for is a typo (fat-finger), Monman is a spelling error. Thank you for picking up the illogical.
And no need to raise a white flag for the weekend. Who sticks around here anyway?
Gee. I have a full time job, attend school, and work three volunteer jobs. Call it whatever that makes you feel good. That's the end of the discussion. I hope you get wiser.
moab wrote:
Overall I am not impressed with your so claimed "logical thinking". It's ilogical at best and unlogical from time to time.
tar wrote:Your thinking process:
This is a direct quote from your answer the first time around. Can you tell us where did I change "focus" and where is the "bait"? Are we NOT talking about marriage definition and whether it can be changed or not? And yes I am using logic argument to prove my stand on an issue is correct, which again seems an alien concept to you.You are switching the focus of the discussion. You are basically saying since definition of marriage has evolved future change is automatically warranted, because logically speaking, the definition of marriage is not "unmolested".
Marriage has evolved in the past,
thus there's no reason its definition can not be changed again today.
This argument is valid per se, yet it does not prove or disprove the issue being discussed (should gay relationship be a valid reason to change the definition of marriage).
You think too much of yourself and failed to see the difference.
Furthermore, when pinned down logically, you have time and again thrown the dice and randomly picked a homily from your Catch Phrase for Dummy handbook that has absolutely no connection to what we are discussing. When I again discredited your claim that a "new common sense" can tell you that the earth revolves around the sun, what point was I evading? And which one is the cart and what is the horse behind it?You used an example of "common sense" from, I don't know, 14th century in arguing its application in today's environment with its updated content. That's the fallacy of your thinking. Also, in making your arguments you tend to focus on minor details that has little, if much to do with the focus. Your "logic" is sort of like this:
Al Gore is advocating reducing carbon footprint, yet he himself travels in private jets. Thus what he is advocating must be wrong.
You see your mistakes now?
Now I don't know what game you are talking about playing, but instead of concentrating on my misspelling a word or two, paying more attention to maybe using logic in your argument can pay off more handsomely? As for asking somebody to proofread, I think that's always a good idea so something like this gem "uncalled-call" doesn't slip through unnoticed.Tell me you don't know what I was intending to say. That makes the argument weaker? I wasn't picking on you, but typo and misspelling are different.
-I don't know about you, but my weekends are packed. Last post of the day.
moab wrote:
tar wrote:It's called bait and switch. You are using the alleged validity of an argument to prove the validity of the issue. How logical is that? Not very.
Forget about your idealogy, just tell me which of the two statements contains a logic fallacy?Example 1: if some definition has been changed over time, therefore it's not an inviolable truth.
Example 2: it's still an unmolested principle not subject to further change despite it's constent evolution.
And when I asked you to defend your arguments with logic, "what's the point" is your answer? I am seriously questioning "what's the point" of this whole exercise. ;-)From that paragraph all I read is blah blah. You may enjoy this exercise.
And no, "common sense" can never determine the sun is not revolving around earth. Only through science we LEARN that is the case.You are once again evading the point. You have a tendency to put the cart before the horses. (seriously).
When you talk about bigots, what do you call people with bigotry? And instead of evidence I asked you to provide when you call me names, you just throw out "extreme left" with your "huge support" but "marginal" win? Can you not show more contradiction about what you are gonna say?You know the name of the game and how it's played. You spent a whole paragraph applying this trick while I only politely and briefly mentioned that. Now all of a sudden you are irritated? Remember your closing quote in your "essay"?
BTW, are we supposed to criticize each others spelling and grammar from now on? I am not sure this is road you want to travel in my opinion.
I can imagine arguments like this "you can't even spell the word, how valid is the argument?". No, I didn't say that and I don't agree. But you know who will.
That said, I could always use some proof-reading from someone else. So yeah, be my guest if you don't mind.
moab wrote:
tar wrote:You are switching the focus of the discussion. You are basically saying since definition of marriage has evolved future change is automatically warranted, because logically speaking, the definition of marriage is not "unmolested".
They said imitation is the best form of flattery. When it comes to debating with somebody who has absolutely no grasp of how to use deductive reasoning to derive logic conclusions, it's down right ridiculous. When you parrot the word fallacy, you can't just simply make a pronouncement, you have to provide your reasoning too.
A quick quiz: which of the following statements contains a fallcy?
Example 1: if some definition has been changed over time, therefore it's not an inviolable truth.
Example 2: it's still an unmolested principle not subject to further change despite it's constent evolution.
Do you understand now that "fallacy" does not just fall from the sky?
And I commend you for your inventiveness by coming up with a new term: "cyclic" logic. Maybe you think it sounds sophisticated but I assure you it's not, it's called "circular logic." I've repeatedly asked you and I ask you again, which of my statements contains circular logic? Do you even know how it works? When your arguments are taken apart and logic shreded don't just flail your hands and repeat what others just said. Try to defend your arguments with something remotely resembles logic for a change will you?I am amazed this comes from someone with "cold", "logical" thinking. What's the point?
And when I asked you to provide any evidence for your vile intimation that gay families corrupt minors to produce more gay people, "common sense" is all that you can mutter? "Commen sense" without science and knowledge is ignorance and supersitition. "Common sense" produced beliefs such as sun revolves around earth, or magic underwear protects you from evil spirits, which is still believed by the people of the Morman church, your hero presumably since their $10 million war chest single handedly defeated CA gay marriage?Did you realize "common sense" has evolved as well and now the notion is not that the Sun revolves around the Earth? It's okay to think with your logic. Make sure you stand on some solid ground.
And your comments of the Mormon Church shows your very ignorance. Christian churches supported Prop 8. Mormon is one of them. (By the way, it's spelled "Mormon"). If this support is reversed in direction you will definitely call is "for a good cause" and readily embrace them as your "hero". That's the problem of your thinking, as I mentioned since your uncalled-call "bigots" accusation of St. Dude. This is very typical behavior of the extreme left.
moab wrote:
tar wrote:Contrary to what you think, marriage is a sacred cow, as evidenced by the huge support it gets from the voters. Yes it appeared to be a "marginal" win in number, yet keep in mind this happened in the most liberal state. You need to pay attention to what people think from out side of the extreme left. Your logic that since the definition of marriage has evolved in the past warrants a drastic change today is, by your very own definition, a fallacy.
No, you don't seem to be able to grasp the idea that marriage is not a secred cow. Contrary to popular belief, it is not cast on the stone as God's law. It has changed from a union of multiple partners within an incestrous tribe to become a monogamous all inclusive contract between a man and a woman, for now. But once the definition can be changed, then there is no reason to say we should stick to what is currently defined. New proposition: extend the definition to between two human beings, regardless of gender.
Now let's examine your objections so far. You first proposed that becuase of the difference of genetic makeup between the gays and the heterosexuals, they should be categorized into a different species just like bats and birds are different species. (Regardless who brought up the idea of genetics, you are not denying that was your proposal are you?)Gay relationship and marriage, though look similar to the inadvertent eyes, are different. That's the message from that analogy. If you jump out of your cyclic "logical" thinking routine for a moment, is that that hard to see?
For reason(s) still unclear to me as to why it's relevant to the discussion of marriage, I simply pointed out that everybody has a different genetic makeup than anybody else, and from one of your previous posts, I had thought you abandoned that ridiculous idea. If you are trying to revive that idea again, come up with a more cogent reasoning then.Your thinking are too far detached for practical purposes. The fundamental difference between gay relationship and marriage is same sex vs. opposite sex. It has its evolution root, and over time social norms and religion evolved with that concept. That's a fact. And that's the context.
And then you are trying to make reproductive issue as your trump card, never mind contradicting your own words just a few sentence earlier that the modern medicine has already rendered this a moot point. (You keep busy accusing me of not paying attention to what you said but never able to give an example. I suggest you keep track of your own words lest you run the risk of being silly.)Here's the thing. Modern medicine helping make gay partners having a "child" does not change the nature of the relationship itself, that is, it's same sex. Using that for your argument, that's the real moot point.
After I pointed out your inconsistency, what did you do? You meandered all over the place and finally settled to accusing gay lifestyle's bad infleunce on kids. Do you actually have ANY example that a kid grow up in a gay family was steered to become a gay? I am not even asking you to provide a scientific study for making that claim. Any anecdote will do.It's called common sense.
Now you keep harping on the notion that previously marriage has only included heterosexual relationships therefore homosexual relationship is out. The fallacy of this circular logic is so apparent that I am astounded you can't see it. You can only provide reasons OUTSIDE of the original premise to try to prove it true or false. In the language of syllogism, you are using the same argument for both major and minor premises to derive your conclusion. Can I be more clear on this?By the same token, you've been barking on this notion of the evolution of the marriage definition. And,
Thanks to heterosexual marriages, the gay community can protect today.
Finally you repeatedly accused me of using terms out of "context." A bit of advice first, it's not an escaping chute you can use whenever you are cornered on your logic fallacy. The "equal but separate" racist battle cry is perfectly parallel to your "civil union but not marriage" idea in terms of implied prejudice. And that that phrase formed part of the basis for banning interracial marriage is very much in "context" in our discussion of gay marriage, unless you want to waltz back to your circular logic again.You ever need to declare your ethnicity? Isn't that "equal but separate" by your standard? That's your fallacy.
moab wrote:
tar wrote:? Again?
moab wrote:Who or what are differnt?
It's okay they are different.
The marriage concept does evolve,Hallelujah! You finally see the light. That's a quantum leap in all our discussion on this subject so far. You should be commended for making this first step in acknowledging this historical fact.
but within the context of being between a man and a women.Wrong. It had been between a man and his multiple concubines, or more precisely, his properties.
Humm. See my response 8 lines above.You keep extrapolating on the "interracial' and "race" difference, and ignored this fact.That's called making a logic inference from an analogy, which seems to have still remained a mystery to you.
Gay relationships on the surface may look "similar" to the traditional marriage, as claimed, both are "two people in love with each other and want to build a family", and they may even have a baby with help of modern medicine. Yet how each arrives at this relationship is different and have different consequences. The gay relationship is not "self-sustainable".What "self-sustainable"? Didn't you forget you just said they can reproduce with the help of modern medicine? And if that's the argument, are you gonna deny marriage to heterosexual couples who don't wnat to have children?
This difference, put in the context of traditional marriage, is much more significant than the claimed "interracial" or "genetically different individual".I see your progress: at least you abandoned your "genetic difference" argument you put forth just yeaterday. Let's hear some new argument after my rebutal to your previous ones.
What do you base your definition of marriage on? Any two person who want to live together and be considered a "family"? When you take "equal but separate" out of its original context(historical southern racism), and try to fit it for advocating the gay relationship, that term needs to be looked at with a fresh eye, in its new context.The essence of the evolution of the human society is family. There are different ways to establish a family. Through marriage, or civil union.Aside from your misunderstanding about the history of marriage, the above statement is nonsensical. Again you should really think about the term "equal but separate," and think hard about what I said about logic inference.
- posted on 12/17/2008
What argument is valid?
Didn't I tell you to keep track of what you said just a few days before? You know it's no fun trying to argue with someone who's already displaying symptoms of being senile. And don't be lazy, just search the word "valid" on this thread will ya?
You really should try to find out the distinction between knowledge and "common sense." You learn the earth revolving around sun through accumulated knowledge, not by "common sense" lore imparted from your forefathers. Scintific knowledge only enriches more scientific knowledge. "Common sense" is just an excuse for people who try to hide their ignorance.
As your comparison of bad neighborhoods and their bad influence on kids to growing up in a gay family, the difference is that there are plenty of SCIENTIFIC evidence to prove that bad neighborhoods infested with drugs and guns have direct consequences in producing more young hoodlums, whereas none such behavior modification has ever been observed from a gay environment on kids. And I am not surprised that your appalling linkage of the two underlines the fact that ignoramuses' favorate escape hatch when losing an argument is to use the "common sense" defense.
Now for the last time let me give you a lesson about circular logic a la traditional marriage a sacred cow: You can't use the premise itself to prove your assumption. So even if I had conceded that marriage definition hadn't changed, in itself could not be your proof that it is not to be changed. So far clear?
On top of that, marriage definition has evolved and therefore, the premise itself is a false premise. Therefore, you used a false premise to start your circular logic. QED.
One piece of advise: never brag about your private life online that can not be independently verified. We got it you have a life outside of this virtual place. So does everybody else. I can brag about my many exploits as well, and believe you me (wink wink), it's extensive. But it can only make you look ridiculous, and maybe picked up by the top ten catch phrase thread. ;-)
moab wrote:
tar wrote:No we need to keep you coming (here). For one, I like to hear different opinions. And it's a plus if those are articulately expressed. I got the impression from your essay that your writing left something to be desired, despite your command at the language.
I told you before, the day people of your ilk start to "respect" or "impressed" with me is the day I will stop coming here. And for the last time, empty pronouncement of "ilogical" (I presume this is a typo not a misspelling? BTW, how can you tell? ;-)) doesn't mean a thing. You have to point out what is "ilogical" in my argument, no?
And finally you have to admit that my argument is valid and yet you still want to start your argument from a false one? Quick, what's the logic behind that? Answer: it's called circular logic.What argument is valid? Definition of marriage has evolved before and thus automatically warrants to be redefined to include gay relationship? Is that so?
The Al Gore analogy, only a hopelessly confused mind can cook up such a non sequitur and tries to use that as a rebuttal. It is not even remotely related to the common sense that without scientific knowledge and scientific instruments, you can't tell the sun is not revolving around earth, whether in 14th century or 21st century.Right. The common sense today, enriched by the "scientific knowledge and scientific instruments", is that the earth is evolving around the sun. As I said, you can't use yesterday's common sense in today's arguments.
Speaking of which, if you can't think of a common sense scenario, try this, would you raise you kids in a neighborhood full of drug dealers and prostitutes? Kids learn from their environment. That's common sense. Applying this to comparable situations, it's called induction.
As far as picking on each other, you've already put on a brave face and now is not the time to back down. I am too lazy to go back on your previous posts, but from the last two, you already gave us "ilogical" and the meaning of this mental fart "uncalled-call" still remains a mystery. Stay focused, you can give us more material for a laugh. ;-)The difference is, uncalled-for is a typo (fat-finger), Monman is a spelling error. Thank you for picking up the illogical.
And no need to raise a white flag for the weekend. Who sticks around here anyway?Gee. I have a full time job, attend school, and work three volunteer jobs. Call it whatever that makes you feel good. That's the end of the discussion. I hope you get wiser.
moab wrote:
Overall I am not impressed with your so claimed "logical thinking". It's ilogical at best and unlogical from time to time.
tar wrote:Your thinking process:
This is a direct quote from your answer the first time around. Can you tell us where did I change "focus" and where is the "bait"? Are we NOT talking about marriage definition and whether it can be changed or not? And yes I am using logic argument to prove my stand on an issue is correct, which again seems an alien concept to you.You are switching the focus of the discussion. You are basically saying since definition of marriage has evolved future change is automatically warranted, because logically speaking, the definition of marriage is not "unmolested".
Marriage has evolved in the past,
thus there's no reason its definition can not be changed again today.
This argument is valid per se, yet it does not prove or disprove the issue being discussed (should gay relationship be a valid reason to change the definition of marriage).
You think too much of yourself and failed to see the difference.
Furthermore, when pinned down logically, you have time and again thrown the dice and randomly picked a homily from your Catch Phrase for Dummy handbook that has absolutely no connection to what we are discussing. When I again discredited your claim that a "new common sense" can tell you that the earth revolves around the sun, what point was I evading? And which one is the cart and what is the horse behind it?You used an example of "common sense" from, I don't know, 14th century in arguing its application in today's environment with its updated content. That's the fallacy of your thinking. Also, in making your arguments you tend to focus on minor details that has little, if much to do with the focus. Your "logic" is sort of like this:
Al Gore is advocating reducing carbon footprint, yet he himself travels in private jets. Thus what he is advocating must be wrong.
You see your mistakes now?
Now I don't know what game you are talking about playing, but instead of concentrating on my misspelling a word or two, paying more attention to maybe using logic in your argument can pay off more handsomely? As for asking somebody to proofread, I think that's always a good idea so something like this gem "uncalled-call" doesn't slip through unnoticed.Tell me you don't know what I was intending to say. That makes the argument weaker? I wasn't picking on you, but typo and misspelling are different.
-I don't know about you, but my weekends are packed. Last post of the day.
moab wrote:
tar wrote:It's called bait and switch. You are using the alleged validity of an argument to prove the validity of the issue. How logical is that? Not very.
Forget about your idealogy, just tell me which of the two statements contains a logic fallacy?Example 1: if some definition has been changed over time, therefore it's not an inviolable truth.
Example 2: it's still an unmolested principle not subject to further change despite it's constent evolution.
And when I asked you to defend your arguments with logic, "what's the point" is your answer? I am seriously questioning "what's the point" of this whole exercise. ;-)From that paragraph all I read is blah blah. You may enjoy this exercise.
And no, "common sense" can never determine the sun is not revolving around earth. Only through science we LEARN that is the case.You are once again evading the point. You have a tendency to put the cart before the horses. (seriously).
When you talk about bigots, what do you call people with bigotry? And instead of evidence I asked you to provide when you call me names, you just throw out "extreme left" with your "huge support" but "marginal" win? Can you not show more contradiction about what you are gonna say?You know the name of the game and how it's played. You spent a whole paragraph applying this trick while I only politely and briefly mentioned that. Now all of a sudden you are irritated? Remember your closing quote in your "essay"?
BTW, are we supposed to criticize each others spelling and grammar from now on? I am not sure this is road you want to travel in my opinion.
I can imagine arguments like this "you can't even spell the word, how valid is the argument?". No, I didn't say that and I don't agree. But you know who will.
That said, I could always use some proof-reading from someone else. So yeah, be my guest if you don't mind.
moab wrote:
tar wrote:You are switching the focus of the discussion. You are basically saying since definition of marriage has evolved future change is automatically warranted, because logically speaking, the definition of marriage is not "unmolested".
They said imitation is the best form of flattery. When it comes to debating with somebody who has absolutely no grasp of how to use deductive reasoning to derive logic conclusions, it's down right ridiculous. When you parrot the word fallacy, you can't just simply make a pronouncement, you have to provide your reasoning too.
A quick quiz: which of the following statements contains a fallcy?
Example 1: if some definition has been changed over time, therefore it's not an inviolable truth.
Example 2: it's still an unmolested principle not subject to further change despite it's constent evolution.
Do you understand now that "fallacy" does not just fall from the sky?
And I commend you for your inventiveness by coming up with a new term: "cyclic" logic. Maybe you think it sounds sophisticated but I assure you it's not, it's called "circular logic." I've repeatedly asked you and I ask you again, which of my statements contains circular logic? Do you even know how it works? When your arguments are taken apart and logic shreded don't just flail your hands and repeat what others just said. Try to defend your arguments with something remotely resembles logic for a change will you?I am amazed this comes from someone with "cold", "logical" thinking. What's the point?
And when I asked you to provide any evidence for your vile intimation that gay families corrupt minors to produce more gay people, "common sense" is all that you can mutter? "Commen sense" without science and knowledge is ignorance and supersitition. "Common sense" produced beliefs such as sun revolves around earth, or magic underwear protects you from evil spirits, which is still believed by the people of the Morman church, your hero presumably since their $10 million war chest single handedly defeated CA gay marriage?Did you realize "common sense" has evolved as well and now the notion is not that the Sun revolves around the Earth? It's okay to think with your logic. Make sure you stand on some solid ground.
And your comments of the Mormon Church shows your very ignorance. Christian churches supported Prop 8. Mormon is one of them. (By the way, it's spelled "Mormon"). If this support is reversed in direction you will definitely call is "for a good cause" and readily embrace them as your "hero". That's the problem of your thinking, as I mentioned since your uncalled-call "bigots" accusation of St. Dude. This is very typical behavior of the extreme left.
moab wrote:
tar wrote:Contrary to what you think, marriage is a sacred cow, as evidenced by the huge support it gets from the voters. Yes it appeared to be a "marginal" win in number, yet keep in mind this happened in the most liberal state. You need to pay attention to what people think from out side of the extreme left. Your logic that since the definition of marriage has evolved in the past warrants a drastic change today is, by your very own definition, a fallacy.
No, you don't seem to be able to grasp the idea that marriage is not a secred cow. Contrary to popular belief, it is not cast on the stone as God's law. It has changed from a union of multiple partners within an incestrous tribe to become a monogamous all inclusive contract between a man and a woman, for now. But once the definition can be changed, then there is no reason to say we should stick to what is currently defined. New proposition: extend the definition to between two human beings, regardless of gender.
Now let's examine your objections so far. You first proposed that becuase of the difference of genetic makeup between the gays and the heterosexuals, they should be categorized into a different species just like bats and birds are different species. (Regardless who brought up the idea of genetics, you are not denying that was your proposal are you?)Gay relationship and marriage, though look similar to the inadvertent eyes, are different. That's the message from that analogy. If you jump out of your cyclic "logical" thinking routine for a moment, is that that hard to see?
For reason(s) still unclear to me as to why it's relevant to the discussion of marriage, I simply pointed out that everybody has a different genetic makeup than anybody else, and from one of your previous posts, I had thought you abandoned that ridiculous idea. If you are trying to revive that idea again, come up with a more cogent reasoning then.Your thinking are too far detached for practical purposes. The fundamental difference between gay relationship and marriage is same sex vs. opposite sex. It has its evolution root, and over time social norms and religion evolved with that concept. That's a fact. And that's the context.
And then you are trying to make reproductive issue as your trump card, never mind contradicting your own words just a few sentence earlier that the modern medicine has already rendered this a moot point. (You keep busy accusing me of not paying attention to what you said but never able to give an example. I suggest you keep track of your own words lest you run the risk of being silly.)Here's the thing. Modern medicine helping make gay partners having a "child" does not change the nature of the relationship itself, that is, it's same sex. Using that for your argument, that's the real moot point.
After I pointed out your inconsistency, what did you do? You meandered all over the place and finally settled to accusing gay lifestyle's bad infleunce on kids. Do you actually have ANY example that a kid grow up in a gay family was steered to become a gay? I am not even asking you to provide a scientific study for making that claim. Any anecdote will do.It's called common sense.
Now you keep harping on the notion that previously marriage has only included heterosexual relationships therefore homosexual relationship is out. The fallacy of this circular logic is so apparent that I am astounded you can't see it. You can only provide reasons OUTSIDE of the original premise to try to prove it true or false. In the language of syllogism, you are using the same argument for both major and minor premises to derive your conclusion. Can I be more clear on this?By the same token, you've been barking on this notion of the evolution of the marriage definition. And,
Thanks to heterosexual marriages, the gay community can protect today.
Finally you repeatedly accused me of using terms out of "context." A bit of advice first, it's not an escaping chute you can use whenever you are cornered on your logic fallacy. The "equal but separate" racist battle cry is perfectly parallel to your "civil union but not marriage" idea in terms of implied prejudice. And that that phrase formed part of the basis for banning interracial marriage is very much in "context" in our discussion of gay marriage, unless you want to waltz back to your circular logic again.You ever need to declare your ethnicity? Isn't that "equal but separate" by your standard? That's your fallacy.
moab wrote:
tar wrote:? Again?
moab wrote:Who or what are differnt?
It's okay they are different.
The marriage concept does evolve,Hallelujah! You finally see the light. That's a quantum leap in all our discussion on this subject so far. You should be commended for making this first step in acknowledging this historical fact.
but within the context of being between a man and a women.Wrong. It had been between a man and his multiple concubines, or more precisely, his properties.
Humm. See my response 8 lines above.You keep extrapolating on the "interracial' and "race" difference, and ignored this fact.That's called making a logic inference from an analogy, which seems to have still remained a mystery to you.
Gay relationships on the surface may look "similar" to the traditional marriage, as claimed, both are "two people in love with each other and want to build a family", and they may even have a baby with help of modern medicine. Yet how each arrives at this relationship is different and have different consequences. The gay relationship is not "self-sustainable".What "self-sustainable"? Didn't you forget you just said they can reproduce with the help of modern medicine? And if that's the argument, are you gonna deny marriage to heterosexual couples who don't wnat to have children?
This difference, put in the context of traditional marriage, is much more significant than the claimed "interracial" or "genetically different individual".I see your progress: at least you abandoned your "genetic difference" argument you put forth just yeaterday. Let's hear some new argument after my rebutal to your previous ones.
What do you base your definition of marriage on? Any two person who want to live together and be considered a "family"? When you take "equal but separate" out of its original context(historical southern racism), and try to fit it for advocating the gay relationship, that term needs to be looked at with a fresh eye, in its new context.The essence of the evolution of the human society is family. There are different ways to establish a family. Through marriage, or civil union.Aside from your misunderstanding about the history of marriage, the above statement is nonsensical. Again you should really think about the term "equal but separate," and think hard about what I said about logic inference.
- posted on 12/17/2008
Exactly. 1) Follow your own "logic" and you will see it the other way around. Whether the definition changed or not in the past has nothing to do with the issue at hand. Hence if the premises is valid or not is irrelevant. 2)You tend to get distracted to other things and focus on the main issue.
tar wrote:
What argument is valid?Didn't I tell you to keep track of what you said just a few days before? You know it's no fun trying to argue with someone who's already displaying symptoms of being senile. And don't be lazy, just search the word "valid" on this thread will ya?
You really should try to find out the distinction between knowledge and "common sense." You learn the earth revolving around sun through accumulated knowledge, not by "common sense" lore imparted from your forefathers. Scintific knowledge only enriches more scientific knowledge. "Common sense" is just an excuse for people who try to hide their ignorance.
As your comparison of bad neighborhoods and their bad influence on kids to growing up in a gay family, the difference is that there are plenty of SCIENTIFIC evidence to prove that bad neighborhoods infested with drugs and guns have direct consequences in producing more young hoodlums, whereas none such behavior modification has ever been observed from a gay environment on kids. And I am not surprised that your appalling linkage of the two underlines the fact that ignoramuses' favorate escape hatch when losing an argument is to use the "common sense" defense.
Kids raised by violent, abusive parents tend to grow up to be violent and abusive parents. Call if common sense or whatsoever, another indication of your argument style.
Now for the last time let me give you a lesson about circular logic a la traditional marriage a sacred cow: You can't use the premise itself to prove your assumption. So even if I had conceded that marriage definition hadn't changed, in itself could not be your proof that it is not to be changed. So far clear?
See above.
On top of that, marriage definition has evolved and therefore, the premise itself is a false premise. Therefore, you used a false premise to start your circular logic. QED.
One piece of advise: never brag about your private life online that can not be independently verified. We got it you have a life outside of this virtual place. So does everybody else. I can brag about my many exploits as well, and believe you me (wink wink), it's extensive. But it can only make you look ridiculous, and maybe picked up by the top ten catch phrase thread. ;-)
Right. If I don't reply, I am raising a white flag. If I explain why I didn't reply, it's a brag. If I don't reply, ... That's the typical logic pattern of yours. I sincerely hope you can pause for a moment and reflect on that.
Like Maya's bad jokes, disregarded.
moab wrote:
tar wrote:No we need to keep you coming (here). For one, I like to hear different opinions. And it's a plus if those are articulately expressed. I got the impression from your essay that your writing left something to be desired, despite your command at the language.
I told you before, the day people of your ilk start to "respect" or "impressed" with me is the day I will stop coming here. And for the last time, empty pronouncement of "ilogical" (I presume this is a typo not a misspelling? BTW, how can you tell? ;-)) doesn't mean a thing. You have to point out what is "ilogical" in my argument, no?
And finally you have to admit that my argument is valid and yet you still want to start your argument from a false one? Quick, what's the logic behind that? Answer: it's called circular logic.What argument is valid? Definition of marriage has evolved before and thus automatically warrants to be redefined to include gay relationship? Is that so?
The Al Gore analogy, only a hopelessly confused mind can cook up such a non sequitur and tries to use that as a rebuttal. It is not even remotely related to the common sense that without scientific knowledge and scientific instruments, you can't tell the sun is not revolving around earth, whether in 14th century or 21st century.Right. The common sense today, enriched by the "scientific knowledge and scientific instruments", is that the earth is evolving around the sun. As I said, you can't use yesterday's common sense in today's arguments.
Speaking of which, if you can't think of a common sense scenario, try this, would you raise you kids in a neighborhood full of drug dealers and prostitutes? Kids learn from their environment. That's common sense. Applying this to comparable situations, it's called induction.
As far as picking on each other, you've already put on a brave face and now is not the time to back down. I am too lazy to go back on your previous posts, but from the last two, you already gave us "ilogical" and the meaning of this mental fart "uncalled-call" still remains a mystery. Stay focused, you can give us more material for a laugh. ;-)The difference is, uncalled-for is a typo (fat-finger), Monman is a spelling error. Thank you for picking up the illogical.
And no need to raise a white flag for the weekend. Who sticks around here anyway?Gee. I have a full time job, attend school, and work three volunteer jobs. Call it whatever that makes you feel good. That's the end of the discussion. I hope you get wiser.
moab wrote:
Overall I am not impressed with your so claimed "logical thinking". It's ilogical at best and unlogical from time to time.
tar wrote:Your thinking process:
This is a direct quote from your answer the first time around. Can you tell us where did I change "focus" and where is the "bait"? Are we NOT talking about marriage definition and whether it can be changed or not? And yes I am using logic argument to prove my stand on an issue is correct, which again seems an alien concept to you.You are switching the focus of the discussion. You are basically saying since definition of marriage has evolved future change is automatically warranted, because logically speaking, the definition of marriage is not "unmolested".
Marriage has evolved in the past,
thus there's no reason its definition can not be changed again today.
This argument is valid per se, yet it does not prove or disprove the issue being discussed (should gay relationship be a valid reason to change the definition of marriage).
You think too much of yourself and failed to see the difference.
Furthermore, when pinned down logically, you have time and again thrown the dice and randomly picked a homily from your Catch Phrase for Dummy handbook that has absolutely no connection to what we are discussing. When I again discredited your claim that a "new common sense" can tell you that the earth revolves around the sun, what point was I evading? And which one is the cart and what is the horse behind it?You used an example of "common sense" from, I don't know, 14th century in arguing its application in today's environment with its updated content. That's the fallacy of your thinking. Also, in making your arguments you tend to focus on minor details that has little, if much to do with the focus. Your "logic" is sort of like this:
Al Gore is advocating reducing carbon footprint, yet he himself travels in private jets. Thus what he is advocating must be wrong.
You see your mistakes now?
Now I don't know what game you are talking about playing, but instead of concentrating on my misspelling a word or two, paying more attention to maybe using logic in your argument can pay off more handsomely? As for asking somebody to proofread, I think that's always a good idea so something like this gem "uncalled-call" doesn't slip through unnoticed.Tell me you don't know what I was intending to say. That makes the argument weaker? I wasn't picking on you, but typo and misspelling are different.
-I don't know about you, but my weekends are packed. Last post of the day.
moab wrote:
tar wrote:It's called bait and switch. You are using the alleged validity of an argument to prove the validity of the issue. How logical is that? Not very.
Forget about your idealogy, just tell me which of the two statements contains a logic fallacy?Example 1: if some definition has been changed over time, therefore it's not an inviolable truth.
Example 2: it's still an unmolested principle not subject to further change despite it's constent evolution.
And when I asked you to defend your arguments with logic, "what's the point" is your answer? I am seriously questioning "what's the point" of this whole exercise. ;-)From that paragraph all I read is blah blah. You may enjoy this exercise.
And no, "common sense" can never determine the sun is not revolving around earth. Only through science we LEARN that is the case.You are once again evading the point. You have a tendency to put the cart before the horses. (seriously).
When you talk about bigots, what do you call people with bigotry? And instead of evidence I asked you to provide when you call me names, you just throw out "extreme left" with your "huge support" but "marginal" win? Can you not show more contradiction about what you are gonna say?You know the name of the game and how it's played. You spent a whole paragraph applying this trick while I only politely and briefly mentioned that. Now all of a sudden you are irritated? Remember your closing quote in your "essay"?
BTW, are we supposed to criticize each others spelling and grammar from now on? I am not sure this is road you want to travel in my opinion.
I can imagine arguments like this "you can't even spell the word, how valid is the argument?". No, I didn't say that and I don't agree. But you know who will.
That said, I could always use some proof-reading from someone else. So yeah, be my guest if you don't mind.
moab wrote:
tar wrote:You are switching the focus of the discussion. You are basically saying since definition of marriage has evolved future change is automatically warranted, because logically speaking, the definition of marriage is not "unmolested".
They said imitation is the best form of flattery. When it comes to debating with somebody who has absolutely no grasp of how to use deductive reasoning to derive logic conclusions, it's down right ridiculous. When you parrot the word fallacy, you can't just simply make a pronouncement, you have to provide your reasoning too.
A quick quiz: which of the following statements contains a fallcy?
Example 1: if some definition has been changed over time, therefore it's not an inviolable truth.
Example 2: it's still an unmolested principle not subject to further change despite it's constent evolution.
Do you understand now that "fallacy" does not just fall from the sky?
And I commend you for your inventiveness by coming up with a new term: "cyclic" logic. Maybe you think it sounds sophisticated but I assure you it's not, it's called "circular logic." I've repeatedly asked you and I ask you again, which of my statements contains circular logic? Do you even know how it works? When your arguments are taken apart and logic shreded don't just flail your hands and repeat what others just said. Try to defend your arguments with something remotely resembles logic for a change will you?I am amazed this comes from someone with "cold", "logical" thinking. What's the point?
And when I asked you to provide any evidence for your vile intimation that gay families corrupt minors to produce more gay people, "common sense" is all that you can mutter? "Commen sense" without science and knowledge is ignorance and supersitition. "Common sense" produced beliefs such as sun revolves around earth, or magic underwear protects you from evil spirits, which is still believed by the people of the Morman church, your hero presumably since their $10 million war chest single handedly defeated CA gay marriage?Did you realize "common sense" has evolved as well and now the notion is not that the Sun revolves around the Earth? It's okay to think with your logic. Make sure you stand on some solid ground.
And your comments of the Mormon Church shows your very ignorance. Christian churches supported Prop 8. Mormon is one of them. (By the way, it's spelled "Mormon"). If this support is reversed in direction you will definitely call is "for a good cause" and readily embrace them as your "hero". That's the problem of your thinking, as I mentioned since your uncalled-call "bigots" accusation of St. Dude. This is very typical behavior of the extreme left.
moab wrote:
tar wrote:Contrary to what you think, marriage is a sacred cow, as evidenced by the huge support it gets from the voters. Yes it appeared to be a "marginal" win in number, yet keep in mind this happened in the most liberal state. You need to pay attention to what people think from out side of the extreme left. Your logic that since the definition of marriage has evolved in the past warrants a drastic change today is, by your very own definition, a fallacy.
No, you don't seem to be able to grasp the idea that marriage is not a secred cow. Contrary to popular belief, it is not cast on the stone as God's law. It has changed from a union of multiple partners within an incestrous tribe to become a monogamous all inclusive contract between a man and a woman, for now. But once the definition can be changed, then there is no reason to say we should stick to what is currently defined. New proposition: extend the definition to between two human beings, regardless of gender.
Now let's examine your objections so far. You first proposed that becuase of the difference of genetic makeup between the gays and the heterosexuals, they should be categorized into a different species just like bats and birds are different species. (Regardless who brought up the idea of genetics, you are not denying that was your proposal are you?)Gay relationship and marriage, though look similar to the inadvertent eyes, are different. That's the message from that analogy. If you jump out of your cyclic "logical" thinking routine for a moment, is that that hard to see?
For reason(s) still unclear to me as to why it's relevant to the discussion of marriage, I simply pointed out that everybody has a different genetic makeup than anybody else, and from one of your previous posts, I had thought you abandoned that ridiculous idea. If you are trying to revive that idea again, come up with a more cogent reasoning then.Your thinking are too far detached for practical purposes. The fundamental difference between gay relationship and marriage is same sex vs. opposite sex. It has its evolution root, and over time social norms and religion evolved with that concept. That's a fact. And that's the context.
And then you are trying to make reproductive issue as your trump card, never mind contradicting your own words just a few sentence earlier that the modern medicine has already rendered this a moot point. (You keep busy accusing me of not paying attention to what you said but never able to give an example. I suggest you keep track of your own words lest you run the risk of being silly.)Here's the thing. Modern medicine helping make gay partners having a "child" does not change the nature of the relationship itself, that is, it's same sex. Using that for your argument, that's the real moot point.
After I pointed out your inconsistency, what did you do? You meandered all over the place and finally settled to accusing gay lifestyle's bad infleunce on kids. Do you actually have ANY example that a kid grow up in a gay family was steered to become a gay? I am not even asking you to provide a scientific study for making that claim. Any anecdote will do.It's called common sense.
Now you keep harping on the notion that previously marriage has only included heterosexual relationships therefore homosexual relationship is out. The fallacy of this circular logic is so apparent that I am astounded you can't see it. You can only provide reasons OUTSIDE of the original premise to try to prove it true or false. In the language of syllogism, you are using the same argument for both major and minor premises to derive your conclusion. Can I be more clear on this?By the same token, you've been barking on this notion of the evolution of the marriage definition. And,
Thanks to heterosexual marriages, the gay community can protect today.
Finally you repeatedly accused me of using terms out of "context." A bit of advice first, it's not an escaping chute you can use whenever you are cornered on your logic fallacy. The "equal but separate" racist battle cry is perfectly parallel to your "civil union but not marriage" idea in terms of implied prejudice. And that that phrase formed part of the basis for banning interracial marriage is very much in "context" in our discussion of gay marriage, unless you want to waltz back to your circular logic again.You ever need to declare your ethnicity? Isn't that "equal but separate" by your standard? That's your fallacy.
moab wrote:
tar wrote:? Again?
moab wrote:Who or what are differnt?
It's okay they are different.
The marriage concept does evolve,Hallelujah! You finally see the light. That's a quantum leap in all our discussion on this subject so far. You should be commended for making this first step in acknowledging this historical fact.
but within the context of being between a man and a women.Wrong. It had been between a man and his multiple concubines, or more precisely, his properties.
Humm. See my response 8 lines above.You keep extrapolating on the "interracial' and "race" difference, and ignored this fact.That's called making a logic inference from an analogy, which seems to have still remained a mystery to you.
Gay relationships on the surface may look "similar" to the traditional marriage, as claimed, both are "two people in love with each other and want to build a family", and they may even have a baby with help of modern medicine. Yet how each arrives at this relationship is different and have different consequences. The gay relationship is not "self-sustainable".What "self-sustainable"? Didn't you forget you just said they can reproduce with the help of modern medicine? And if that's the argument, are you gonna deny marriage to heterosexual couples who don't wnat to have children?
This difference, put in the context of traditional marriage, is much more significant than the claimed "interracial" or "genetically different individual".I see your progress: at least you abandoned your "genetic difference" argument you put forth just yeaterday. Let's hear some new argument after my rebutal to your previous ones.
What do you base your definition of marriage on? Any two person who want to live together and be considered a "family"? When you take "equal but separate" out of its original context(historical southern racism), and try to fit it for advocating the gay relationship, that term needs to be looked at with a fresh eye, in its new context.The essence of the evolution of the human society is family. There are different ways to establish a family. Through marriage, or civil union.Aside from your misunderstanding about the history of marriage, the above statement is nonsensical. Again you should really think about the term "equal but separate," and think hard about what I said about logic inference.
- posted on 12/18/2008
I am glad you finally abandoned your "traditional marriage definition is a sacred cow" stance. That's a good start. One clarification: when I proved that marraige definition has been changed in the past therefore your premise false, its logic does not prevent future changes at all, therefore your statement "whether the definition changed or not in the past has nothing to do with the issue at hand" is a last grasp in thin air.
Again your comparison of loving gay relationships to family violence is vile and reprehensible. Your "common sense" again failed you miserably as you can't provide a shred of evidence that gays came from gay families, ever.
Grammar correction: "Hence if the premises is valid..." Premises are valid or premise is valid.
moab wrote:
Exactly. 1) Follow your own "logic" and you will see it the other way around. Whether the definition changed or not in the past has nothing to do with the issue at hand. Hence if the premises is valid or not is irrelevant. 2)You tend to get distracted to other things and focus on the main issue.
tar wrote:Kids raised by violent, abusive parents tend to grow up to be violent and abusive parents. Call if common sense or whatsoever, another indication of your argument style.
What argument is valid?Didn't I tell you to keep track of what you said just a few days before? You know it's no fun trying to argue with someone who's already displaying symptoms of being senile. And don't be lazy, just search the word "valid" on this thread will ya?
You really should try to find out the distinction between knowledge and "common sense." You learn the earth revolving around sun through accumulated knowledge, not by "common sense" lore imparted from your forefathers. Scintific knowledge only enriches more scientific knowledge. "Common sense" is just an excuse for people who try to hide their ignorance.
As your comparison of bad neighborhoods and their bad influence on kids to growing up in a gay family, the difference is that there are plenty of SCIENTIFIC evidence to prove that bad neighborhoods infested with drugs and guns have direct consequences in producing more young hoodlums, whereas none such behavior modification has ever been observed from a gay environment on kids. And I am not surprised that your appalling linkage of the two underlines the fact that ignoramuses' favorate escape hatch when losing an argument is to use the "common sense" defense.
Now for the last time let me give you a lesson about circular logic a la traditional marriage a sacred cow: You can't use the premise itself to prove your assumption. So even if I had conceded that marriage definition hadn't changed, in itself could not be your proof that it is not to be changed. So far clear?See above.
On top of that, marriage definition has evolved and therefore, the premise itself is a false premise. Therefore, you used a false premise to start your circular logic. QED.Right. If I don't reply, I am raising a white flag. If I explain why I didn't reply, it's a brag. If I don't reply, ... That's the typical logic pattern of yours. I sincerely hope you can pause for a moment and reflect on that.
One piece of advise: never brag about your private life online that can not be independently verified. We got it you have a life outside of this virtual place. So does everybody else. I can brag about my many exploits as well, and believe you me (wink wink), it's extensive. But it can only make you look ridiculous, and maybe picked up by the top ten catch phrase thread. ;-)
Like Maya's bad jokes, disregarded.
moab wrote:
tar wrote:No we need to keep you coming (here). For one, I like to hear different opinions. And it's a plus if those are articulately expressed. I got the impression from your essay that your writing left something to be desired, despite your command at the language.
I told you before, the day people of your ilk start to "respect" or "impressed" with me is the day I will stop coming here. And for the last time, empty pronouncement of "ilogical" (I presume this is a typo not a misspelling? BTW, how can you tell? ;-)) doesn't mean a thing. You have to point out what is "ilogical" in my argument, no?
And finally you have to admit that my argument is valid and yet you still want to start your argument from a false one? Quick, what's the logic behind that? Answer: it's called circular logic.What argument is valid? Definition of marriage has evolved before and thus automatically warrants to be redefined to include gay relationship? Is that so?
The Al Gore analogy, only a hopelessly confused mind can cook up such a non sequitur and tries to use that as a rebuttal. It is not even remotely related to the common sense that without scientific knowledge and scientific instruments, you can't tell the sun is not revolving around earth, whether in 14th century or 21st century.Right. The common sense today, enriched by the "scientific knowledge and scientific instruments", is that the earth is evolving around the sun. As I said, you can't use yesterday's common sense in today's arguments.
Speaking of which, if you can't think of a common sense scenario, try this, would you raise you kids in a neighborhood full of drug dealers and prostitutes? Kids learn from their environment. That's common sense. Applying this to comparable situations, it's called induction.
As far as picking on each other, you've already put on a brave face and now is not the time to back down. I am too lazy to go back on your previous posts, but from the last two, you already gave us "ilogical" and the meaning of this mental fart "uncalled-call" still remains a mystery. Stay focused, you can give us more material for a laugh. ;-)The difference is, uncalled-for is a typo (fat-finger), Monman is a spelling error. Thank you for picking up the illogical.
And no need to raise a white flag for the weekend. Who sticks around here anyway?Gee. I have a full time job, attend school, and work three volunteer jobs. Call it whatever that makes you feel good. That's the end of the discussion. I hope you get wiser.
moab wrote:
Overall I am not impressed with your so claimed "logical thinking". It's ilogical at best and unlogical from time to time.
tar wrote:Your thinking process:
This is a direct quote from your answer the first time around. Can you tell us where did I change "focus" and where is the "bait"? Are we NOT talking about marriage definition and whether it can be changed or not? And yes I am using logic argument to prove my stand on an issue is correct, which again seems an alien concept to you.You are switching the focus of the discussion. You are basically saying since definition of marriage has evolved future change is automatically warranted, because logically speaking, the definition of marriage is not "unmolested".
Marriage has evolved in the past,
thus there's no reason its definition can not be changed again today.
This argument is valid per se, yet it does not prove or disprove the issue being discussed (should gay relationship be a valid reason to change the definition of marriage).
You think too much of yourself and failed to see the difference.
Furthermore, when pinned down logically, you have time and again thrown the dice and randomly picked a homily from your Catch Phrase for Dummy handbook that has absolutely no connection to what we are discussing. When I again discredited your claim that a "new common sense" can tell you that the earth revolves around the sun, what point was I evading? And which one is the cart and what is the horse behind it?You used an example of "common sense" from, I don't know, 14th century in arguing its application in today's environment with its updated content. That's the fallacy of your thinking. Also, in making your arguments you tend to focus on minor details that has little, if much to do with the focus. Your "logic" is sort of like this:
Al Gore is advocating reducing carbon footprint, yet he himself travels in private jets. Thus what he is advocating must be wrong.
You see your mistakes now?
Now I don't know what game you are talking about playing, but instead of concentrating on my misspelling a word or two, paying more attention to maybe using logic in your argument can pay off more handsomely? As for asking somebody to proofread, I think that's always a good idea so something like this gem "uncalled-call" doesn't slip through unnoticed.Tell me you don't know what I was intending to say. That makes the argument weaker? I wasn't picking on you, but typo and misspelling are different.
-I don't know about you, but my weekends are packed. Last post of the day.
moab wrote:
tar wrote:It's called bait and switch. You are using the alleged validity of an argument to prove the validity of the issue. How logical is that? Not very.
Forget about your idealogy, just tell me which of the two statements contains a logic fallacy?Example 1: if some definition has been changed over time, therefore it's not an inviolable truth.
Example 2: it's still an unmolested principle not subject to further change despite it's constent evolution.
And when I asked you to defend your arguments with logic, "what's the point" is your answer? I am seriously questioning "what's the point" of this whole exercise. ;-)From that paragraph all I read is blah blah. You may enjoy this exercise.
And no, "common sense" can never determine the sun is not revolving around earth. Only through science we LEARN that is the case.You are once again evading the point. You have a tendency to put the cart before the horses. (seriously).
When you talk about bigots, what do you call people with bigotry? And instead of evidence I asked you to provide when you call me names, you just throw out "extreme left" with your "huge support" but "marginal" win? Can you not show more contradiction about what you are gonna say?You know the name of the game and how it's played. You spent a whole paragraph applying this trick while I only politely and briefly mentioned that. Now all of a sudden you are irritated? Remember your closing quote in your "essay"?
BTW, are we supposed to criticize each others spelling and grammar from now on? I am not sure this is road you want to travel in my opinion.
I can imagine arguments like this "you can't even spell the word, how valid is the argument?". No, I didn't say that and I don't agree. But you know who will.
That said, I could always use some proof-reading from someone else. So yeah, be my guest if you don't mind.
moab wrote:
tar wrote:You are switching the focus of the discussion. You are basically saying since definition of marriage has evolved future change is automatically warranted, because logically speaking, the definition of marriage is not "unmolested".
They said imitation is the best form of flattery. When it comes to debating with somebody who has absolutely no grasp of how to use deductive reasoning to derive logic conclusions, it's down right ridiculous. When you parrot the word fallacy, you can't just simply make a pronouncement, you have to provide your reasoning too.
A quick quiz: which of the following statements contains a fallcy?
Example 1: if some definition has been changed over time, therefore it's not an inviolable truth.
Example 2: it's still an unmolested principle not subject to further change despite it's constent evolution.
Do you understand now that "fallacy" does not just fall from the sky?
And I commend you for your inventiveness by coming up with a new term: "cyclic" logic. Maybe you think it sounds sophisticated but I assure you it's not, it's called "circular logic." I've repeatedly asked you and I ask you again, which of my statements contains circular logic? Do you even know how it works? When your arguments are taken apart and logic shreded don't just flail your hands and repeat what others just said. Try to defend your arguments with something remotely resembles logic for a change will you?I am amazed this comes from someone with "cold", "logical" thinking. What's the point?
And when I asked you to provide any evidence for your vile intimation that gay families corrupt minors to produce more gay people, "common sense" is all that you can mutter? "Commen sense" without science and knowledge is ignorance and supersitition. "Common sense" produced beliefs such as sun revolves around earth, or magic underwear protects you from evil spirits, which is still believed by the people of the Morman church, your hero presumably since their $10 million war chest single handedly defeated CA gay marriage?Did you realize "common sense" has evolved as well and now the notion is not that the Sun revolves around the Earth? It's okay to think with your logic. Make sure you stand on some solid ground.
And your comments of the Mormon Church shows your very ignorance. Christian churches supported Prop 8. Mormon is one of them. (By the way, it's spelled "Mormon"). If this support is reversed in direction you will definitely call is "for a good cause" and readily embrace them as your "hero". That's the problem of your thinking, as I mentioned since your uncalled-call "bigots" accusation of St. Dude. This is very typical behavior of the extreme left.
moab wrote:
tar wrote:Contrary to what you think, marriage is a sacred cow, as evidenced by the huge support it gets from the voters. Yes it appeared to be a "marginal" win in number, yet keep in mind this happened in the most liberal state. You need to pay attention to what people think from out side of the extreme left. Your logic that since the definition of marriage has evolved in the past warrants a drastic change today is, by your very own definition, a fallacy.
No, you don't seem to be able to grasp the idea that marriage is not a secred cow. Contrary to popular belief, it is not cast on the stone as God's law. It has changed from a union of multiple partners within an incestrous tribe to become a monogamous all inclusive contract between a man and a woman, for now. But once the definition can be changed, then there is no reason to say we should stick to what is currently defined. New proposition: extend the definition to between two human beings, regardless of gender.
Now let's examine your objections so far. You first proposed that becuase of the difference of genetic makeup between the gays and the heterosexuals, they should be categorized into a different species just like bats and birds are different species. (Regardless who brought up the idea of genetics, you are not denying that was your proposal are you?)Gay relationship and marriage, though look similar to the inadvertent eyes, are different. That's the message from that analogy. If you jump out of your cyclic "logical" thinking routine for a moment, is that that hard to see?
For reason(s) still unclear to me as to why it's relevant to the discussion of marriage, I simply pointed out that everybody has a different genetic makeup than anybody else, and from one of your previous posts, I had thought you abandoned that ridiculous idea. If you are trying to revive that idea again, come up with a more cogent reasoning then.Your thinking are too far detached for practical purposes. The fundamental difference between gay relationship and marriage is same sex vs. opposite sex. It has its evolution root, and over time social norms and religion evolved with that concept. That's a fact. And that's the context.
And then you are trying to make reproductive issue as your trump card, never mind contradicting your own words just a few sentence earlier that the modern medicine has already rendered this a moot point. (You keep busy accusing me of not paying attention to what you said but never able to give an example. I suggest you keep track of your own words lest you run the risk of being silly.)Here's the thing. Modern medicine helping make gay partners having a "child" does not change the nature of the relationship itself, that is, it's same sex. Using that for your argument, that's the real moot point.
After I pointed out your inconsistency, what did you do? You meandered all over the place and finally settled to accusing gay lifestyle's bad infleunce on kids. Do you actually have ANY example that a kid grow up in a gay family was steered to become a gay? I am not even asking you to provide a scientific study for making that claim. Any anecdote will do.It's called common sense.
Now you keep harping on the notion that previously marriage has only included heterosexual relationships therefore homosexual relationship is out. The fallacy of this circular logic is so apparent that I am astounded you can't see it. You can only provide reasons OUTSIDE of the original premise to try to prove it true or false. In the language of syllogism, you are using the same argument for both major and minor premises to derive your conclusion. Can I be more clear on this?By the same token, you've been barking on this notion of the evolution of the marriage definition. And,
Thanks to heterosexual marriages, the gay community can protect today.
Finally you repeatedly accused me of using terms out of "context." A bit of advice first, it's not an escaping chute you can use whenever you are cornered on your logic fallacy. The "equal but separate" racist battle cry is perfectly parallel to your "civil union but not marriage" idea in terms of implied prejudice. And that that phrase formed part of the basis for banning interracial marriage is very much in "context" in our discussion of gay marriage, unless you want to waltz back to your circular logic again.You ever need to declare your ethnicity? Isn't that "equal but separate" by your standard? That's your fallacy.
moab wrote:
tar wrote:? Again?
moab wrote:Who or what are differnt?
It's okay they are different.
The marriage concept does evolve,Hallelujah! You finally see the light. That's a quantum leap in all our discussion on this subject so far. You should be commended for making this first step in acknowledging this historical fact.
but within the context of being between a man and a women.Wrong. It had been between a man and his multiple concubines, or more precisely, his properties.
Humm. See my response 8 lines above.You keep extrapolating on the "interracial' and "race" difference, and ignored this fact.That's called making a logic inference from an analogy, which seems to have still remained a mystery to you.
Gay relationships on the surface may look "similar" to the traditional marriage, as claimed, both are "two people in love with each other and want to build a family", and they may even have a baby with help of modern medicine. Yet how each arrives at this relationship is different and have different consequences. The gay relationship is not "self-sustainable".What "self-sustainable"? Didn't you forget you just said they can reproduce with the help of modern medicine? And if that's the argument, are you gonna deny marriage to heterosexual couples who don't wnat to have children?
This difference, put in the context of traditional marriage, is much more significant than the claimed "interracial" or "genetically different individual".I see your progress: at least you abandoned your "genetic difference" argument you put forth just yeaterday. Let's hear some new argument after my rebutal to your previous ones.
What do you base your definition of marriage on? Any two person who want to live together and be considered a "family"? When you take "equal but separate" out of its original context(historical southern racism), and try to fit it for advocating the gay relationship, that term needs to be looked at with a fresh eye, in its new context.The essence of the evolution of the human society is family. There are different ways to establish a family. Through marriage, or civil union.Aside from your misunderstanding about the history of marriage, the above statement is nonsensical. Again you should really think about the term "equal but separate," and think hard about what I said about logic inference.
- posted on 12/22/2008
You are not serious, are you?
The burden of proof is yours, not mine. And be clear you are not the only one who took the course of biology or evolution.
Since you are not in a hurry to find the proof that some biologist who studied homosexuality made the statement that "生物学意义上说, 同性恋不是正常的" (and I doubt seriously anyone in Mayacafe has systematically studied homosexuality who made such a statement), the only conclusion I can draw is: You cannot support your assertion of "生物学意义上说, 同性恋不是正常的".
st dude wrote:
我原文只在谈生物学意义上物种的正常与不正常.并没有说同性恋者精神上的事情. 同性恋的心理学研究是你引进的. 至于说给出哪一位生物学家说同性恋不正常. 我们cafe就有.请查过去一年内的贴. 其实你要是学了一点生物,进化论,你也应该能理解.
"结果是差距很大的"心理学调查你要感兴趣也不难找到.
sands wrote:
Please show the evidence for your assertion "....结果是差距很大".
"你给的所谓正常的结论的链接是心理学会的, 不是生物学会. " So? You know 心理学 is an interdisciplinary field, relying on many other fields such as biology, neurology, anthropology, sociology, law, etc. Pavlov is not a psychologist but that does not prevent Skinner's behaviorism from building upon his classic conditioning framework. Psychology credits Kinsey's pioneer work in sexuality research. Since you know "心理学会取消了同性恋是精神病的结论", you should also know that 心理学会 is calling everyone to make effort to eliminate prejudice and discrimination against homosexual people, right? Why do you think they are doing that (calling up for fighting against discrimination)? If you have no scientific base to indicate 同性恋's disorder, but you still think they are not normal, don't deserve to be treated the same way as heterosexuals (such as rights for marriage), then it must be the prejudice or fear or homophobia, or what else?
On the other hand, since you insist "生物学意义上说, 同性恋不是正常的, 你去问问任何生物学家...", perhaps you could name a 生物学家 who studied homosexuality scientitfically and stated indeed that 同性恋不是正常的.
Can you? Please? - posted on 12/22/2008
"女权小资"?
Not sure about the 小资 part, but for 女权, I guess anyone could be one, as feminism is the belief that women's experience and thoughts/feelings should be valued and that women should have the same rights and status as men in a society, who wouldn't be? Who would still believe, to this day, that women are inferior to men?
Yes, I would be glad and proud to call myself a feminist.
(well, I lost my cnd account long time ago for listing some weblink)
玛雅 wrote:
今天有空,先逮着老圣来扎针。性别研究是个很大的题目,文章介绍到处都有。我不是专家,但看到咖啡里诸多咖啡友对同性恋的了解如此谬误,不得不再多解释一下。还是逐段来吧。
他们今天给你个面子结婚,明天就离婚. 老板娘做事时有好心不得好报.这件事上,我看又很悬.我这么说同性恋者绝不是空口无凭, 老板娘这方面应该知道的很清楚.今天结婚,明天离婚的,在异性恋中比比皆是,有数据说明同性恋的离婚率高于异性恋吗?有数据表明同性恋婚姻更加朝三暮四吗?
tar这样的政治小资和sands这样的女权小资去争去说吧.sand原来是女权小资啊,真的不知道,是CND的文友?高兴。
我们的厕所之分,男厕所女厕所,不就是separate (sex) but equal(access)吗? 归根结底, separate but equal在种族问题上之所以不能被接受, 因为它的区分(separate)是以种族为基础的. 而种族不同只是外貌模样的skin-shallow之分. 这样的区分当然是错的.好,暂时同意你的厕所比喻,但我要问的是两边的厕所的配置一样吗?你给同性恋婚姻同样的权利,子女收养、离婚教堂同样的待遇吗?两边厕所配置不一样,我们当然要去配置高级的厕所。
我上次的同性恋异性恋的生物意义和家庭社会意义上的不同的理由,你不同意不要紧. 老板娘是relationship专家, 我们还是从人性的角度出发, 就看这个relationship. 这是牛肉.很多同性恋的朋友喜欢的都是跟他们一样女性化的男人。所以你常见到两个漂亮男人走在一起,毫无疑问他们是gay。老圣,你住哪儿啊,见过多少对同性恋人啊?去纽约三藩的街上走走可能给您更多感性认识。
最简单地解释是, 也是借用来自他们自己之口的话: 我们爱真正的男人,可真正的男人爱的是女人.
比如, commitment的重要性在同性恋者的意识中非常淡. 这很大程度上是由他们的dilemma先天决定的.这点老圣又是糊涂了。同性恋人关系不稳定有几个因素,第一,社会不承认,很多人依然在closet里,他们不愿在公开场合承认自己的性取向,所以他们容易动摇朝三暮四;第二,同性恋群体是知性智性群体,一般收入高于常人,他们选择配偶非常挑剔;第三,没有婚姻的约束,他们为什么不朝秦暮楚?同性恋群体的流动、不稳定,是他们被歧视的一个明显表征。更有许多人,一见到同性恋,马上就联想到艾滋病,把他们当作性病传播者,简直跟见到麻风病人一样。
老圣,我接触的同性恋、畸恋、虐恋的例子我想比您多,您最好还是先了解这个群体再发表看法。
- posted on 12/25/2008
转贴西瓜大丸子汤的文字:不能一部分人比另一部分人更平等 [ 西瓜大丸子汤 ] 于:2008-11-14 00:41:57
http://www.ccthere.com/article/1889783
附近的城市要有反对加州通过Proposition 8(禁止同性婚姻)的集会。我知道这个事是通过
* 一个本地无神论者的邮件列表 (是的, 凡是基督徒支持的我们都要反对!)
* 我们一个老师在facebook上说要去 (学校吗, 自由派大本营)
关于同性婚姻, 我绝不反对. 我非常支持同性婚姻背后所体现的普世价值: 人人平等 (all men are
created equal).
不过...
既然是人人平等, 就不能一部分人比另一部分人更平等(some is more equal than the others).
比如, 一个男人可不可以和自己的兄弟结婚? 我认为, 如果允许同性婚姻, 实在没有什么理由要禁止兄弟结婚, 或者姐妹结婚. 我相信世界上一定有同志爱上了自己的同为同志的sibilings. 由于众所周知的同性恋的基因的存在, 兄弟姐妹同为同志的概率应该说是更大. 由于他们不会生育, 所以兄弟(或者姐妹)之间的婚姻对社会不会有大的危害.
恩, 那么一个男人可不可以和自己的爸爸结婚呢? 基于同样的平等原则, 我觉得也是没有理由禁止的. 同理, 一个女人也应该可以和自己的妈妈结婚. 任何禁止这种婚姻的法律都是落伍的, 不平等的, 反人权的. 基于同样的平等原则, 应该允许世界上任何一个成年男人和任何一个成年男人的婚姻, 任何一个成年女人和任何一个成年女人的婚姻! 我们绝不应该让不平等在任何一个人群中存在!
那么, 一个男人(女人)可以不可以和自己的表妹(表哥)结婚呢? 现在医学这么昌明, 遗传病史都了解的很清楚, 表兄妹结婚的带来的遗传问题应该说在可控范围内. 从历史的角度, 禁止表亲之间的婚姻只是最近的事, 过去几千年大多数人类都是允许这种婚姻的,也没见人类退化. 我也相信, 很多表兄妹之间是真心相爱的, 只是由于万恶的法律而剥夺了婚姻的权利. 我们也应该把平等的权利还给他们!
基于同样的原则, 我们应该允许世界上所有的男人和女人自由的和所有的男人和女人结婚! 除非另一个人是自己的直系亲属或直接兄弟姐妹.
等一下, 为什么要有这个"除非"? 表亲之间基因重叠是1/4, 祖孙之间的基因重叠也是1/4, 为什么可以允许表亲婚姻而禁止祖孙的婚姻呢? 我相信, 世界上同样有很多人真心和自己的孙子/孙女/爷爷/奶奶/外公/外婆相互爱慕, 我们不应该剥夺他们共同生活的权利!
现在我们只剩下最后的不平等堡垒了, 一个人可以和自己的1/2基因重叠者结婚吗? 也就是接兄弟姐妹,父母, 子女.
我们可以基于什么样的理由来禁止这种婚姻呢? 恋母情结和恋父情结是再正常不过的事情, 而朝夕相处的
兄弟姐妹之间耳鬓厮磨之际相互爱慕也是情理之中的事, 绝不会比同性恋更不正常. 如果我们担心基因退化, 现在避孕技术这样发达, 很多夫妻都可以做到多少年不生孩子, 实在不能以生育作为借口. 更何况,
完全可以通过人工授精的方式来多样化我们的基因库, 正如我们同性婚姻的先驱们所倡导的一样.
这个最后的不平等堡垒也被攻破了! Yes, We Can!
等等, 真是最后的堡垒吗? 既然允许两个任意性别的人之间的自由组合, 为什么不允许三个任意性别的人结婚组成家庭呢? 我相信世界上一定有这样的三个人, 他们相互爱慕, 渴望组成家庭. 谁说真爱只能在两个人之间? 这可以是一个双性恋和一个异性加一个同性的婚姻, 也可以是三个双性恋的婚姻, 也可以是三个同性恋的婚姻, 或者是两个双性恋和一个同性恋或者异性恋之间的婚姻. 注意, 这和一夫多妻或者一妻多夫是完全不同的, 那是不平等的, 而我们倡导的现代婚姻制度是自由的, 所有配偶与所有配偶之间完全平等的. 同理, 我们应该允许任意数量的, 任意性别的人自由组成家庭.
所以, 我认为, 基于人人平等这个普世价值, 同性婚姻的支持者们, 应该勇敢地站出来为世界上同样遭受不公正待遇的的人们争取平等的权利! 绝不应该容忍和允许一部分人比另一部分人更平等这样的事情. Yes, We Can! - posted on 12/26/2008
这西瓜大丸子汤举一反三的能力超强,如果是A, 就一定是B, B也一定 = C。。。
哪有这般逻辑?
颜儿 wrote:
转贴西瓜大丸子汤的文字:不能一部分人比另一部分人更平等 [ 西瓜大丸子汤 ] 于:2008-11-14 00:41:57
http://www.ccthere.com/article/1889783 附近的城市要有反对加州通过Proposition 8(禁止同性婚姻)的集会。我知道这个事是通过
* 一个本地无神论者的邮件列表 (是的, 凡是基督徒支持的我们都要反对!)
* 我们一个老师在facebook上说要去 (学校吗, 自由派大本营)
关于同性婚姻, 我绝不反对. 我非常支持同性婚姻背后所体现的普世价值: 人人平等 (all men are
created equal).
不过...
既然是人人平等, 就不能一部分人比另一部分人更平等(some is more equal than the others).
比如, 一个男人可不可以和自己的兄弟结婚? 我认为, 如果允许同性婚姻, 实在没有什么理由要禁止兄弟结婚, 或者姐妹结婚. 我相信世界上一定有同志爱上了自己的同为同志的sibilings. 由于众所周知的同性恋的基因的存在, 兄弟姐妹同为同志的概率应该说是更大. 由于他们不会生育, 所以兄弟(或者姐妹)之间的婚姻对社会不会有大的危害.
恩, 那么一个男人可不可以和自己的爸爸结婚呢? 基于同样的平等原则, 我觉得也是没有理由禁止的. 同理, 一个女人也应该可以和自己的妈妈结婚. 任何禁止这种婚姻的法律都是落伍的, 不平等的, 反人权的. 基于同样的平等原则, 应该允许世界上任何一个成年男人和任何一个成年男人的婚姻, 任何一个成年女人和任何一个成年女人的婚姻! 我们绝不应该让不平等在任何一个人群中存在!
那么, 一个男人(女人)可以不可以和自己的表妹(表哥)结婚呢? 现在医学这么昌明, 遗传病史都了解的很清楚, 表兄妹结婚的带来的遗传问题应该说在可控范围内. 从历史的角度, 禁止表亲之间的婚姻只是最近的事, 过去几千年大多数人类都是允许这种婚姻的,也没见人类退化. 我也相信, 很多表兄妹之间是真心相爱的, 只是由于万恶的法律而剥夺了婚姻的权利. 我们也应该把平等的权利还给他们!
基于同样的原则, 我们应该允许世界上所有的男人和女人自由的和所有的男人和女人结婚! 除非另一个人是自己的直系亲属或直接兄弟姐妹.
等一下, 为什么要有这个"除非"? 表亲之间基因重叠是1/4, 祖孙之间的基因重叠也是1/4, 为什么可以允许表亲婚姻而禁止祖孙的婚姻呢? 我相信, 世界上同样有很多人真心和自己的孙子/孙女/爷爷/奶奶/外公/外婆相互爱慕, 我们不应该剥夺他们共同生活的权利!
现在我们只剩下最后的不平等堡垒了, 一个人可以和自己的1/2基因重叠者结婚吗? 也就是接兄弟姐妹,父母, 子女.
我们可以基于什么样的理由来禁止这种婚姻呢? 恋母情结和恋父情结是再正常不过的事情, 而朝夕相处的
兄弟姐妹之间耳鬓厮磨之际相互爱慕也是情理之中的事, 绝不会比同性恋更不正常. 如果我们担心基因退化, 现在避孕技术这样发达, 很多夫妻都可以做到多少年不生孩子, 实在不能以生育作为借口. 更何况,
完全可以通过人工授精的方式来多样化我们的基因库, 正如我们同性婚姻的先驱们所倡导的一样.
这个最后的不平等堡垒也被攻破了! Yes, We Can!
等等, 真是最后的堡垒吗? 既然允许两个任意性别的人之间的自由组合, 为什么不允许三个任意性别的人结婚组成家庭呢? 我相信世界上一定有这样的三个人, 他们相互爱慕, 渴望组成家庭. 谁说真爱只能在两个人之间? 这可以是一个双性恋和一个异性加一个同性的婚姻, 也可以是三个双性恋的婚姻, 也可以是三个同性恋的婚姻, 或者是两个双性恋和一个同性恋或者异性恋之间的婚姻. 注意, 这和一夫多妻或者一妻多夫是完全不同的, 那是不平等的, 而我们倡导的现代婚姻制度是自由的, 所有配偶与所有配偶之间完全平等的. 同理, 我们应该允许任意数量的, 任意性别的人自由组成家庭.
所以, 我认为, 基于人人平等这个普世价值, 同性婚姻的支持者们, 应该勇敢地站出来为世界上同样遭受不公正待遇的的人们争取平等的权利! 绝不应该容忍和允许一部分人比另一部分人更平等这样的事情. Yes, We Can! - posted on 12/26/2008
tar wrote:
I am glad you finally abandoned your "traditional marriage definition is a sacred cow" stance. That's a good start. One clarification: when I proved that marraige definition has been changed in the past therefore your premise false, its logic does not prevent future changes at all, therefore your statement "whether the definition changed or not in the past has nothing to do with the issue at hand" is a last grasp in thin air.
You have serious thinking errors. The premise of of argument is not whether the traditional definition has ever changed in the past.
I will let you be the one to end our discussion if that means a lot to you. But don't get over your head and think that transpires into I agreeing with what you said.
Again your comparison of loving gay relationships to family violence is vile and reprehensible. Your "common sense" again failed you miserably as you can't provide a shred of evidence that gays came from gay families, ever.
Again, heres' your thinking error: Gays do not come from gay families in the first place, though kids raised up in gay families have stronger exposure to gay ideology and may be influenced by it.
Grammar correction: "Hence if the premises is valid..." Premises are valid or premise is valid.
Thank you. I will spare your "marraige" error.
moab wrote:
Exactly. 1) Follow your own "logic" and you will see it the other way around. Whether the definition changed or not in the past has nothing to do with the issue at hand. Hence if the premises is valid or not is irrelevant. 2)You tend to get distracted to other things and focus on the main issue.
tar wrote:Kids raised by violent, abusive parents tend to grow up to be violent and abusive parents. Call if common sense or whatsoever, another indication of your argument style.
What argument is valid?Didn't I tell you to keep track of what you said just a few days before? You know it's no fun trying to argue with someone who's already displaying symptoms of being senile. And don't be lazy, just search the word "valid" on this thread will ya?
You really should try to find out the distinction between knowledge and "common sense." You learn the earth revolving around sun through accumulated knowledge, not by "common sense" lore imparted from your forefathers. Scintific knowledge only enriches more scientific knowledge. "Common sense" is just an excuse for people who try to hide their ignorance.
As your comparison of bad neighborhoods and their bad influence on kids to growing up in a gay family, the difference is that there are plenty of SCIENTIFIC evidence to prove that bad neighborhoods infested with drugs and guns have direct consequences in producing more young hoodlums, whereas none such behavior modification has ever been observed from a gay environment on kids. And I am not surprised that your appalling linkage of the two underlines the fact that ignoramuses' favorate escape hatch when losing an argument is to use the "common sense" defense.
Now for the last time let me give you a lesson about circular logic a la traditional marriage a sacred cow: You can't use the premise itself to prove your assumption. So even if I had conceded that marriage definition hadn't changed, in itself could not be your proof that it is not to be changed. So far clear?See above.
On top of that, marriage definition has evolved and therefore, the premise itself is a false premise. Therefore, you used a false premise to start your circular logic. QED.Right. If I don't reply, I am raising a white flag. If I explain why I didn't reply, it's a brag. If I don't reply, ... That's the typical logic pattern of yours. I sincerely hope you can pause for a moment and reflect on that.
One piece of advise: never brag about your private life online that can not be independently verified. We got it you have a life outside of this virtual place. So does everybody else. I can brag about my many exploits as well, and believe you me (wink wink), it's extensive. But it can only make you look ridiculous, and maybe picked up by the top ten catch phrase thread. ;-)
Like Maya's bad jokes, disregarded.
moab wrote:
tar wrote:No we need to keep you coming (here). For one, I like to hear different opinions. And it's a plus if those are articulately expressed. I got the impression from your essay that your writing left something to be desired, despite your command at the language.
I told you before, the day people of your ilk start to "respect" or "impressed" with me is the day I will stop coming here. And for the last time, empty pronouncement of "ilogical" (I presume this is a typo not a misspelling? BTW, how can you tell? ;-)) doesn't mean a thing. You have to point out what is "ilogical" in my argument, no?
And finally you have to admit that my argument is valid and yet you still want to start your argument from a false one? Quick, what's the logic behind that? Answer: it's called circular logic.What argument is valid? Definition of marriage has evolved before and thus automatically warrants to be redefined to include gay relationship? Is that so?
The Al Gore analogy, only a hopelessly confused mind can cook up such a non sequitur and tries to use that as a rebuttal. It is not even remotely related to the common sense that without scientific knowledge and scientific instruments, you can't tell the sun is not revolving around earth, whether in 14th century or 21st century.Right. The common sense today, enriched by the "scientific knowledge and scientific instruments", is that the earth is evolving around the sun. As I said, you can't use yesterday's common sense in today's arguments.
Speaking of which, if you can't think of a common sense scenario, try this, would you raise you kids in a neighborhood full of drug dealers and prostitutes? Kids learn from their environment. That's common sense. Applying this to comparable situations, it's called induction.
As far as picking on each other, you've already put on a brave face and now is not the time to back down. I am too lazy to go back on your previous posts, but from the last two, you already gave us "ilogical" and the meaning of this mental fart "uncalled-call" still remains a mystery. Stay focused, you can give us more material for a laugh. ;-)The difference is, uncalled-for is a typo (fat-finger), Monman is a spelling error. Thank you for picking up the illogical.
And no need to raise a white flag for the weekend. Who sticks around here anyway?Gee. I have a full time job, attend school, and work three volunteer jobs. Call it whatever that makes you feel good. That's the end of the discussion. I hope you get wiser.
moab wrote:
Overall I am not impressed with your so claimed "logical thinking". It's ilogical at best and unlogical from time to time.
tar wrote:Your thinking process:
This is a direct quote from your answer the first time around. Can you tell us where did I change "focus" and where is the "bait"? Are we NOT talking about marriage definition and whether it can be changed or not? And yes I am using logic argument to prove my stand on an issue is correct, which again seems an alien concept to you.You are switching the focus of the discussion. You are basically saying since definition of marriage has evolved future change is automatically warranted, because logically speaking, the definition of marriage is not "unmolested".
Marriage has evolved in the past,
thus there's no reason its definition can not be changed again today.
This argument is valid per se, yet it does not prove or disprove the issue being discussed (should gay relationship be a valid reason to change the definition of marriage).
You think too much of yourself and failed to see the difference.
Furthermore, when pinned down logically, you have time and again thrown the dice and randomly picked a homily from your Catch Phrase for Dummy handbook that has absolutely no connection to what we are discussing. When I again discredited your claim that a "new common sense" can tell you that the earth revolves around the sun, what point was I evading? And which one is the cart and what is the horse behind it?You used an example of "common sense" from, I don't know, 14th century in arguing its application in today's environment with its updated content. That's the fallacy of your thinking. Also, in making your arguments you tend to focus on minor details that has little, if much to do with the focus. Your "logic" is sort of like this:
Al Gore is advocating reducing carbon footprint, yet he himself travels in private jets. Thus what he is advocating must be wrong.
You see your mistakes now?
Now I don't know what game you are talking about playing, but instead of concentrating on my misspelling a word or two, paying more attention to maybe using logic in your argument can pay off more handsomely? As for asking somebody to proofread, I think that's always a good idea so something like this gem "uncalled-call" doesn't slip through unnoticed.Tell me you don't know what I was intending to say. That makes the argument weaker? I wasn't picking on you, but typo and misspelling are different.
-I don't know about you, but my weekends are packed. Last post of the day.
moab wrote:
tar wrote:It's called bait and switch. You are using the alleged validity of an argument to prove the validity of the issue. How logical is that? Not very.
Forget about your idealogy, just tell me which of the two statements contains a logic fallacy?Example 1: if some definition has been changed over time, therefore it's not an inviolable truth.
Example 2: it's still an unmolested principle not subject to further change despite it's constent evolution.
And when I asked you to defend your arguments with logic, "what's the point" is your answer? I am seriously questioning "what's the point" of this whole exercise. ;-)From that paragraph all I read is blah blah. You may enjoy this exercise.
And no, "common sense" can never determine the sun is not revolving around earth. Only through science we LEARN that is the case.You are once again evading the point. You have a tendency to put the cart before the horses. (seriously).
When you talk about bigots, what do you call people with bigotry? And instead of evidence I asked you to provide when you call me names, you just throw out "extreme left" with your "huge support" but "marginal" win? Can you not show more contradiction about what you are gonna say?You know the name of the game and how it's played. You spent a whole paragraph applying this trick while I only politely and briefly mentioned that. Now all of a sudden you are irritated? Remember your closing quote in your "essay"?
BTW, are we supposed to criticize each others spelling and grammar from now on? I am not sure this is road you want to travel in my opinion.
I can imagine arguments like this "you can't even spell the word, how valid is the argument?". No, I didn't say that and I don't agree. But you know who will.
That said, I could always use some proof-reading from someone else. So yeah, be my guest if you don't mind.
moab wrote:
tar wrote:You are switching the focus of the discussion. You are basically saying since definition of marriage has evolved future change is automatically warranted, because logically speaking, the definition of marriage is not "unmolested".
They said imitation is the best form of flattery. When it comes to debating with somebody who has absolutely no grasp of how to use deductive reasoning to derive logic conclusions, it's down right ridiculous. When you parrot the word fallacy, you can't just simply make a pronouncement, you have to provide your reasoning too.
A quick quiz: which of the following statements contains a fallcy?
Example 1: if some definition has been changed over time, therefore it's not an inviolable truth.
Example 2: it's still an unmolested principle not subject to further change despite it's constent evolution.
Do you understand now that "fallacy" does not just fall from the sky?
And I commend you for your inventiveness by coming up with a new term: "cyclic" logic. Maybe you think it sounds sophisticated but I assure you it's not, it's called "circular logic." I've repeatedly asked you and I ask you again, which of my statements contains circular logic? Do you even know how it works? When your arguments are taken apart and logic shreded don't just flail your hands and repeat what others just said. Try to defend your arguments with something remotely resembles logic for a change will you?I am amazed this comes from someone with "cold", "logical" thinking. What's the point?
And when I asked you to provide any evidence for your vile intimation that gay families corrupt minors to produce more gay people, "common sense" is all that you can mutter? "Commen sense" without science and knowledge is ignorance and supersitition. "Common sense" produced beliefs such as sun revolves around earth, or magic underwear protects you from evil spirits, which is still believed by the people of the Morman church, your hero presumably since their $10 million war chest single handedly defeated CA gay marriage?Did you realize "common sense" has evolved as well and now the notion is not that the Sun revolves around the Earth? It's okay to think with your logic. Make sure you stand on some solid ground.
And your comments of the Mormon Church shows your very ignorance. Christian churches supported Prop 8. Mormon is one of them. (By the way, it's spelled "Mormon"). If this support is reversed in direction you will definitely call is "for a good cause" and readily embrace them as your "hero". That's the problem of your thinking, as I mentioned since your uncalled-call "bigots" accusation of St. Dude. This is very typical behavior of the extreme left.
moab wrote:
tar wrote:Contrary to what you think, marriage is a sacred cow, as evidenced by the huge support it gets from the voters. Yes it appeared to be a "marginal" win in number, yet keep in mind this happened in the most liberal state. You need to pay attention to what people think from out side of the extreme left. Your logic that since the definition of marriage has evolved in the past warrants a drastic change today is, by your very own definition, a fallacy.
No, you don't seem to be able to grasp the idea that marriage is not a secred cow. Contrary to popular belief, it is not cast on the stone as God's law. It has changed from a union of multiple partners within an incestrous tribe to become a monogamous all inclusive contract between a man and a woman, for now. But once the definition can be changed, then there is no reason to say we should stick to what is currently defined. New proposition: extend the definition to between two human beings, regardless of gender.
Now let's examine your objections so far. You first proposed that becuase of the difference of genetic makeup between the gays and the heterosexuals, they should be categorized into a different species just like bats and birds are different species. (Regardless who brought up the idea of genetics, you are not denying that was your proposal are you?)Gay relationship and marriage, though look similar to the inadvertent eyes, are different. That's the message from that analogy. If you jump out of your cyclic "logical" thinking routine for a moment, is that that hard to see?
For reason(s) still unclear to me as to why it's relevant to the discussion of marriage, I simply pointed out that everybody has a different genetic makeup than anybody else, and from one of your previous posts, I had thought you abandoned that ridiculous idea. If you are trying to revive that idea again, come up with a more cogent reasoning then.Your thinking are too far detached for practical purposes. The fundamental difference between gay relationship and marriage is same sex vs. opposite sex. It has its evolution root, and over time social norms and religion evolved with that concept. That's a fact. And that's the context.
And then you are trying to make reproductive issue as your trump card, never mind contradicting your own words just a few sentence earlier that the modern medicine has already rendered this a moot point. (You keep busy accusing me of not paying attention to what you said but never able to give an example. I suggest you keep track of your own words lest you run the risk of being silly.)Here's the thing. Modern medicine helping make gay partners having a "child" does not change the nature of the relationship itself, that is, it's same sex. Using that for your argument, that's the real moot point.
After I pointed out your inconsistency, what did you do? You meandered all over the place and finally settled to accusing gay lifestyle's bad infleunce on kids. Do you actually have ANY example that a kid grow up in a gay family was steered to become a gay? I am not even asking you to provide a scientific study for making that claim. Any anecdote will do.It's called common sense.
Now you keep harping on the notion that previously marriage has only included heterosexual relationships therefore homosexual relationship is out. The fallacy of this circular logic is so apparent that I am astounded you can't see it. You can only provide reasons OUTSIDE of the original premise to try to prove it true or false. In the language of syllogism, you are using the same argument for both major and minor premises to derive your conclusion. Can I be more clear on this?By the same token, you've been barking on this notion of the evolution of the marriage definition. And,
Thanks to heterosexual marriages, the gay community can protect today.
Finally you repeatedly accused me of using terms out of "context." A bit of advice first, it's not an escaping chute you can use whenever you are cornered on your logic fallacy. The "equal but separate" racist battle cry is perfectly parallel to your "civil union but not marriage" idea in terms of implied prejudice. And that that phrase formed part of the basis for banning interracial marriage is very much in "context" in our discussion of gay marriage, unless you want to waltz back to your circular logic again.You ever need to declare your ethnicity? Isn't that "equal but separate" by your standard? That's your fallacy.
moab wrote:
tar wrote:? Again?
moab wrote:Who or what are differnt?
It's okay they are different.
The marriage concept does evolve,Hallelujah! You finally see the light. That's a quantum leap in all our discussion on this subject so far. You should be commended for making this first step in acknowledging this historical fact.
but within the context of being between a man and a women.Wrong. It had been between a man and his multiple concubines, or more precisely, his properties.
Humm. See my response 8 lines above.You keep extrapolating on the "interracial' and "race" difference, and ignored this fact.That's called making a logic inference from an analogy, which seems to have still remained a mystery to you.
Gay relationships on the surface may look "similar" to the traditional marriage, as claimed, both are "two people in love with each other and want to build a family", and they may even have a baby with help of modern medicine. Yet how each arrives at this relationship is different and have different consequences. The gay relationship is not "self-sustainable".What "self-sustainable"? Didn't you forget you just said they can reproduce with the help of modern medicine? And if that's the argument, are you gonna deny marriage to heterosexual couples who don't wnat to have children?
This difference, put in the context of traditional marriage, is much more significant than the claimed "interracial" or "genetically different individual".I see your progress: at least you abandoned your "genetic difference" argument you put forth just yeaterday. Let's hear some new argument after my rebutal to your previous ones.
What do you base your definition of marriage on? Any two person who want to live together and be considered a "family"? When you take "equal but separate" out of its original context(historical southern racism), and try to fit it for advocating the gay relationship, that term needs to be looked at with a fresh eye, in its new context.The essence of the evolution of the human society is family. There are different ways to establish a family. Through marriage, or civil union.Aside from your misunderstanding about the history of marriage, the above statement is nonsensical. Again you should really think about the term "equal but separate," and think hard about what I said about logic inference.
Please paste HTML code and press Enter.
- 玛雅
- #1 moab
- #2 玛雅
- #3 st dude
- #4 玛雅
- #5 sands
- #6 Joey
- #7 玛雅
- #8 Joey
- #9 阿姗
- #10 gz
- #11 浮生
- #12 rzp
- #13 Joey
- #14 July
- #15 st dude
- #16 tar
- #17 玛雅
- #18 浮生
- #19 风子
- #20 sands
- #21 老瓦
- #22 SevenStar
- #23 July
- #24 Joey
- #25 风子
- #26 st dude
- #27 st dude
- #28 st dude
- #29 玛雅
- #30 玛雅
- #31 tar
- #32 moab
- #33 tar
- #34 moab
- #35 tar
- #36 moab
- #37 tar
- #38 moab
- #39 tar
- #40 moab
- #41 tar
- #42 moab
- #43 tar
- #44 moab
- #45 tar
- #46 moab
- #47 st dude
- #48 tar
- #49 st dude
- #50 moab
- #51 tar
- #52 tar
- #53 玛雅
- #54 moab
- #55 xw
- #56 tar
- #57 浮生
- #58 moab
- #59 tar
- #60 moab
- #61 tar
- #62 sands
- #63 sands
- #64 颜儿
- #65 July
- #66 moab
(c) 2010 Maya Chilam Foundation