Rick Santorum is an idiot, a bigot, and morally inconsistent...

[Tricky]

In your heart, you know I'm right.

Knowledge works much better when the brain is involved.

 

[Quinn]

In your heart, you know I'm right.

Ah, one of the classic last-resort lines uttered when one has no defenses left, right up there with "I pity you" or "I'll pray for you." In a way I'm impressed that you've stuck by your ignorant and demonstrably wrong positions long enough for your argument to devolve to this point.

 

[Upchurch]

The state should have no interest in promoting unnatural acts.

Strawman argument. There is nothign unnatural about homosexuality. It has been around throughout the history of humanity and is present in other species as well.

Homophobia like yours is comparitively much more unnatural. Maybe you should be forbidden to marry.

I disagree, Tricky. It's not a strawman argument. It's straight up factually incorrect.

Not only is homosexuality found throughout the animal kingdom, there is research (or so I am told by a friend in the field) that suggests that there is an evolutionary advantage in a sufficiently large population to having a certain portion of that population. From a group dynamic, homosexuals represent able bodied resource producers who don't increase the size of the group. In essence, gays increase the food per mouth ratio for their family/community.

There is nothing at all unnatural about homosexuality.

Back to the question, the state does have an interest in promoting stability among the citizenry and marriage, in general, promotes stability. Married couples are less likely to move around. They settle into a community, and so on.

So, given that your above answer is complete make believe, for what reason should gays be prohibited from marrying?

(Incidently, you do know that there are religions in the US that are currently performing gay weddings, right? This faux religious outrage at homosexuality is merely a rationalization, not a reason.)

 

[Robert Prey]

I disagree, Tricky. It's not a strawman argument. It's straight up factually incorrect.

Not only is homosexuality found throughout the animal kingdom, there is research (or so I am told by a friend in the field) that suggests that there is an evolutionary advantage in a sufficiently large population to having a certain portion of that population. From a group dynamic, homosexuals represent able bodied resource producers who don't increase the size of the group. In essence, gays increase the food per mouth ratio for their family/community.

Homosexuality may be found in the animal kingdom, but human beings are not animals. You are not a pig. You have a brain and a conscience. Use it.

 

[Upchurch]

Homosexuality may be found in the animal kingdom, but human beings are not animals. You are not a pig. You have a brain and a conscience. Use it.

Well, yes, humans are animals. Regardless, your argument that homosexuality is unnatural is demonstrably false.

So, why then should gay marriage be banned?

 

[elbe]

In your heart, you know I'm right.

I'm pretty sure that goes "Search your feelings; you know it to be true"

 

[cwalner]

Homosexuality may be found in the animal kingdom, but human beings are not animals. You are not a pig. You have a brain and a conscience. Use it.

Really! you are accusing Upchurch of making the naturalistic fallacy. You were the one who claimed that homosexuality is unnatural. It is your fallacy. Upchurch was pointing out that not only was your logic fallacious, but your claim about what is natural was demonstrably wrong.

 

[joobz]

Robert, you're hilarious.

You appealed to Nature, claiming homosexuality is unnatural.

The state should have no interest in promoting unnatural acts.

Then when it is demonstrated that homosexuality is actually a natural act, you state that it doesn't matter.

Homosexuality may be found in the animal kingdom, but human beings are not animals.

If we aren't animals, we aren't part of nature.
Then why appeal to nature?

So far:
You appealed to definition: Facts proved you wrong.
You appealed to antiquity: Facts and logic proved you wrong.
You appealed to nature: Facts proved you wrong
You appealed to procreation: logic proved you wrong. (you are still avoiding avoided addressing what happens to sterile couples)

Just like Santorum, you have no good reason to oppose Gay marriage.
Your desire to exclude people from the freedoms the majority enjoy is entirely against the principles our country was founded upon.

But take heart, there are other nations which share your bigoted views. Iran comes to mind.

 

[joobz]

Another strawman. Strawwoman. The subject is marriage, not slavery.

If you are making a valid argument, it should be applicable to all issues equally. If you wish to exclude a subject from your argument, you must hope that the reason for that exclusion doesn't also exclude your own argument.

Obviously. And not an appeal to antiquity, but an appeal to common sense.

Reread what you wrote.

Traditional dictionary definition backed up by 10,000 or so years of human experience trumps any conveniently contrived definition of a temporary moment in time.

This is an appeal to antiquity. That because antihomosexual attitudes existed, it is therefore right that antihomosexual attitudes to exist.
Well:
1.) Historically, antihomosexual attitude isn't universally reviled.
2.) even if it was, there are many historical traditions that we consider immoral today (e.g., slavery, female oppression, racism, etc.)

So, once again, you are clearly wrong.

 

[Silly Green Monkey]

Another strawman. Strawwoman. The subject is marriage, not slavery. Obviously. And not an appeal to antiquity, but an appeal to common sense.

Marriage WAS slavery. For the females. Of which there was usually no limit to how many could be bound to one man.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The state should have no interest in promoting unnatural acts.

Hey, we agree. And since homosexuality is clearly natural for some people, the state should not be trying to ban homosexual unions or homosexual behavior.

Nat-Geo: Homosexual Activity Among Animals

But, actually, some same-sex birds do do it. So do beetles, sheep, fruit bats, dolphins, and orangutans. Zoologists are discovering that homosexual and bisexual activity is not unknown within the animal kingdom.

Roy and Silo, two male chinstrap penguins at New York's Central Park Zoo have been inseparable for six years now. They display classic pair-bonding behavior—entwining of necks, mutual preening, flipper flapping, and the rest. They also have sex, while ignoring potential female mates.

Wild birds exhibit similar behavior. There are male ostriches that only court their own gender, and pairs of male flamingos that mate, build nests, and even raise foster chicks.

List of animals displaying homosexual behavior^WP
Live Science: Homosexual Animals Out of the Closet

"Homosexuality has been observed in more than 1,500 species, and the phenomenon has been well described for 500 of them," said Petter Bockman, project coordinator of the exhibition.

Perhaps your God's little joke is on you, Robert.



As for the science and what is 'natural', I especially like this insight:

we went through all this time period in sociobiology where everything had to be tied to reproduction and reproductive success," said Linda Wolfe, who heads the Department of Anthropology at East Carolina University. "If it doesn't have [something to do] with reproduction it's not important."

However, species continuation may not always be the ultimate goal, as many animals, including humans, engage in sexual activities more than is necessary for reproduction.

The field of biology has had a number of these false assumptions and perhaps there are many more such hurdles to overcome. Humans are not as special as we've sometimes assumed. We are not the only tool users and non-human primates can learn language including syntax when taught at an early enough age. And intelligent birds defy the brain size myths biologists have previously maintained.

So goes the myth that natural selection is strictly about reproduction.

 

[Tricky]

List of animals displaying homosexual behaviorWP
Live Science: Homosexual Animals Out of the Closet

You forget. Robert contends that humans aren't animals. I'm wondering if he believe's he's a vegetable or a mineral.

 

[RandFan]

So goes the myth that natural selection is strictly about reproduction.

And here is where you fail. I don't know about Robrt but Santorum would tell you that all living things were inteligently designed. Reproduction was designed by god, so if animals engage in same sex behavior it is because god... wait... never mind.

 

[joobz]

You forget. Robert contends that humans aren't animals. I'm wondering if he believe's he's a vegetable or a mineral.

Just like everything other argument, He believes what ever is needed in order to hate gays.

 

[gnome]

That's what I think... all he needs is just enough standard arguments to make it sound defensible, he doesn't have to actually win any arguments about it.

 

[fuelair]

Rick Santorum is an idiot, a bigot, and morally inconsistent...


And, he is a frothy mixture!!!!!

 

[Regnad Kcin]

The state should have no interest in promoting unnatural acts.

Homosexuality, bisexuality, asexuality and the like are common in the animal kingdom (ETA: a tip of the hat to others who've cited sources after I posted). Furthermore, the very existence of various "acts" serves to make them "natural" in the first place.

But I see what your main point is, that once the state grants official recognition to various things, it therefore legitimizes them. And many people, represented by the state, strenuously object to this elevated status.

Thus the murky waters of marriage, being both a legal union of two parties as well as a ceremonial act with cultural traditions. Were it merely the former, any argument against same-sex marriage would, I think, be long settled. That traditions are changing (as they always have) and religious dogma is being challenged are slowing things a bit. But what won't be stopped, what is inevitable, is contined progress towards the American ideal of liberty and justice for all.

 

[Robert Prey]

Homosexuality, bisexuality, asexuality and the like are common in the animal kingdom (ETA: a tip of the hat to others who've cited sources after I posted). Furthermore, the very existence of various "acts" serves to make them "natural" in the first place.

But I see what your main point is, that once the state grants official recognition to various things, it therefore legitimizes them. And many people, represented by the state, strenuously object to this elevated status.

Thus the murky waters of marriage, being both a legal union of two parties as well as a ceremonial act with cultural traditions. Were it merely the former, any argument against same-sex marriage would, I think, be long settled. That traditions are changing (as they always have) and religious dogma is being challenged are slowing things a bit. But what won't be stopped, what is inevitable, is contined progress towards the American ideal of liberty and justice for all.

No. What may be inevitable, is the decline and fall of Western Civilization via internal moral decay. Just like Rome, which history teaches, also engaged in such widespread deviant practices.

 

[Robert Prey]

Well, yes, humans are animals. Regardless, your argument that homosexuality is unnatural is demonstrably false.

So, why then should gay marriage be banned?

Because homosexual "marriage" is not marriage. Sorry, but I refuse to use that other word, which in countless heterosexual love songs, used to be a wonderful rhyme for any number of words, but now cannot be sung without hearing somebody elicit a snicker. Another "victory" for the deviant.

 

[tyr_13]

No. What may be inevitable, is the decline and fall of Western Civilization via internal moral decay. Just like Rome, which history teaches, also engaged in such widespread deviant practices.

If you believe that homosexuality caused the fall of Rome then History hasn't taught you anything.