Lets discuss: Homophobia

[Traitorfish]

It isn't intervening into private life, if two dudes or two chicks hold a lavish marriage ceremony good for them, but the government declining to recognize it is intrusion?

Of course; the government's job is to stamp marriage certificates for willing and legitimately consenting adults, not to stick its nose into their personal life and decide who is and is not compatible. A government is supposed to work for its people, not dictate propriety to them.

 

[civ_king]

Of course; the government's job is to stamp marriage certificates for willing and legitimately consenting adults, not to stick its nose into their personal life and decide who is and is not compatible. A government is supposed to work for its people, not dictate propriety to them.

Well doesn't it already check if either are already married? Why don't we stop that because the government's job is to stamp marriage certificates for willing and legitimately consenting adults?

 

[Traitorfish]

Well doesn't it already check if either are already married? Why don't we stop that because the government's job is to stamp marriage certificates for willing and legitimately consenting adults?

Maintaining marriage as an exclusive legal contract is hardly the same as dictating who is and is not permitted to enter into that contract.

 

[wcbarney]

Maintaining marriage as an exclusive legal contract is hardly the same as dictating who is and is not permitted to enter into that contract.

Well, yes, but: When I was married -- a long, long, long time ago -- my bride-to-be and I both had to have blood tests done & the results certified by a physician that neither of us had any sexually transmitted diseases. We didn't, and I forget what would have happened to our planned marriage if either of us actually had STDs.

 

[Traitorfish]

Well, yes, but: When I was married -- a long, long, long time ago -- my bride-to-be and I both had to have blood tests done & the results certified by a physician that neither of us had any sexually transmitted diseases. We didn't, and I forget what would have happened to our planned marriage if either of us actually had STDs.

I'm not really sure what implications this is supposed to have for the issue that is being discussed. Perhaps you could elaborate?

 

[MobBoss]

I'm not really sure what implications this is supposed to have for the issue that is being discussed. Perhaps you could elaborate?

I think his point was there was no gurantee of marriage pending the outcome of those tests. Science has rendered the old fashioned blood test a thing of the past, but it did indeed used to be part of the marriage license process.

 

[Hitti-Litti]

I disagree. Of course we are higher beings. Of course we are superior. And of course we can overcome our instincts. People do it every, single, day, and thats is simply reality.

Or maybe we just can't always tell when we're acting on instinct. I mean, that's why it's called instinct and not rational thinking, we're not always aware how our natural instincts affect our lives. But if you insist that we can overcome our instincts, then I claim that we're not the only animals capable of doing it.

 

[MobBoss]

Or maybe we just can't always tell when we're acting on instinct. I mean, that's why it's called instinct and not rational thinking, we're not always aware how our natural instincts affect our lives. But if you insist that we can overcome our instincts, then I claim that we're not the only animals capable of doing it.

And I further claim we are the only animals that conciously do it on a regular basis. Which is partly why we are indeed higher beings.

 

[Flying Pig]

And I further claim we are the only animals that conciously do it on a regular basis. Which is partly why we are indeed higher beings.

...you don't have a dog, do you?

 

[MobBoss]

...you don't have a dog, do you?

Had many. I dont see dogs making concious decisions to overcome their instincts. I see a lot of them trained to do so by humans. But being trained and commanded to do that, and making concious decision in regards to it simply arent the same thing.

 

[NBAfan]

The idea that humans are not higher then animals is silly. The most advanced animals are barely at man's stone age level.

 

[MobBoss]

The idea that humans are not higher then animals is silly. The most advanced animals are barely at man's stone age level.

Not even anywhere near that.

 

[Behind The Mask]

The idea that humans are not higher then animals is silly. The most advanced animals are barely at man's stone age level.

Perhaps the proper question is not how high above animals are man, but rather how near to them we are...

Maybe we are higher beings, but that has not stopped nature from humbling us; for all our 'superiority' its best not to forget from wence it came.

 

[Hitti-Litti]

Had many. I dont see dogs making concious decisions to overcome their instincts. I see a lot of them trained to do so by humans. But being trained and commanded to do that, and making concious decision in regards to it simply arent the same thing.

(bolding by me)

Dog: "Hmmm, I wonder whether I should obey my master and just sit here OR should I eat that delicious sausage? Now that's a tough nut to crack!"

The idea that humans are not higher then animals is silly. The most advanced animals are barely at man's stone age level.

Why is intelligence the only factor that determines how high a species is in the ranking? The smartest isn't always the winner.

 

[MobBoss]

(bolding by me)

Dog: "Hmmm, I wonder whether I should obey my master and just sit here OR should I eat that delicious sausage? Now that's a tough nut to crack!"

Well, I know I cant read a dog's mind to confirm what you post here. Can you? But in your example, I would say whether the dog obeys his master or eats the sausage is a matter of his conditioning vs his instincts.......not conscious thought.

Why is intelligence the only factor that determines how high a species is in the ranking? The smartest isn't always the winner.

Considering how badly humans (i.e. the smartest) are squeezing out all the rest, I would think reality disagrees with you.

 

[Flying Pig]

Well, I know I cant read a dog's mind to confirm what you post here. Can you? But in your example, I would say whether the dog obeys his master or eats the sausage is a matter of his conditioning vs his instincts.......not conscious thought.

Now the clincher - what would happen if you tried that with a baby that had never had parental input, in other words a human being without conditioning? Experimentally, even in this thought experiment - how are we intrinsically any 'better'? In fact, how can you say that our thought process need be any different to Rover's?

 

[Hitti-Litti]

Well, I know I cant read a dog's mind to confirm what you post here. Can you? But in your example, I would say whether the dog obeys his master or eats the sausage is a matter of his conditioning vs his instincts.......not conscious thought.

Conditioning can be seen as some kind of a conscious thought (unless we're talking about conditioning concerning only physiological phenomena, such as Pavlov and drooling): "should I trust that my master rewards me if I obey him, or should I just eat that goddamn sausage?"

Considering how badly humans (i.e. the smartest) are squeezing out all the rest, I would think reality disagrees with you.

All the rest, you say? What about deadly diseases? Locusts and other such insects?

 

[MobBoss]

All the rest, you say? What about deadly diseases? Locusts and other such insects?

You mean like small pox or polio?

Ok.

 

[Hitti-Litti]

You mean like small pox or polio?

Ok.

Nah, more like malaria.

 

[MobBoss]

Nah, more like malaria.

What? Small Pox and Polio not 'dangerous' enough for you?

I mean you bring up dangerous diseases and I give you two that have effectively been wiped out by humans. Do you deny the examples?

But lets talk malaria. In looking at it, it seems that the problem isnt the nature of the disease itself, but the cost involved in wiping it out effectively...and in fact, in some areas, like the Southern USA where malaria was once common, its been effectively eradicated. So, its not a question could we eradicate malaria since the answer to that is 'yes', the question is how can we fund the eradication of it.

So....?