Update: Please read the comment section.
Last week, the anti-8 lawyers called to the stand an academic psychologist who, under cross-examination, testified that, according to his own surve, 88 percent of gay male and 68 percent of lesbian respondents said they had no choice in their sexual orientation.
This goes to the question of immutability which Ted Olson wrote about in his pro-SSM argument that appeared in Newsweek prior to the start of the trial.
Doubtful rhetoric.
Olson wrote that science has taught us that people "do not choose" to be homosexually orientated. He wrote that sexual orientation is immutable "to a very large extent".
His rhetoric belied uncertainty even as he gave the impression that his assertion rests beyond scientific doubt. However, to say that something is unchangeable "to a very large extent" is like saying that something is very unique. A characteristic is mutable or it is immutable; it is unique or it is not unique; it is a matter of either-or. Olson was deceptively certain; he left room for real doubt.
Extrapolating the extent of Choice.
Back to the plaintiff's witness. Let's put to use the testimony of the academic psychologist who reported to the court the results of his own survey. He suggested that 12% of the homosexual men (100%-88%=12%) and 32% of the homosexual women (100%-68%=32%) responded that they had chosen their orientation.
According to surveys conducted around 2004-2005, the adult homosexual population might represent about 4% of the general adult population in the country. Of that small portion, about 1 in 5 -- or 20% -- would have chosen their sexual orientation, based on extrapolations from the testimony of the plaintiff's expert witness.
[Click here to read the rest of the blogpost.]
* * *
Adult Homosexual Population.
The Williams Institute estimated that there were 8.8 million "gay, lesbian, and bisexual people" in 2005. [1] That year the Census estimated there were 223 million adults (age 18 and older). [2] That would mean that the GLB portion of the adult population was about 4% (8.8 / 222.9 = 3.9%). That is also about the percentage indicated in CNN's national election exit poll of 2004. [3]
According to Black and Gates et al, 1.4% of women and 2.5% of men had exclusively same sex sexual partners over the last five years. [4]
Update: Please read the comment section. Thanks to Ax, RK, and Op-ed.
Taken with the expert testimony of the plaintiff's witness, this would mean that 0.45% of women made the choice to homosexual; and 0.30% of men did so; and that would mean 0.75% of adults made the choice of homosexual orientation. Or 20% of the adult homosexual population.
That's 1 chooser in 5 homosexual adults.
Footnotes:
[1] "Census Snapshot", The Williams Institute, December 2007.
[2] "National Population Estimates", US Census Bureau, 2005.
[3] Presidential Election Exit Poll, CNN.com, 2004
[4] “Demographics of the Gay and Lesbian Population in the United States: Evidence from Available Systematic Data Sources,” Demography, vol 37, No. 2 (May, 2000) 139-154.
Also note that the 2000 Census analysis of the largest gay lobby organization, Human Rights Campaign, settled on 5% as the share of the general adult population which is openly homosexual.
* * *
Return to: "Anti-8 Trial Evidence in a Nutshell."
Wow. That's some very bad math there at the end. 0.45% of women + 0.30% of men does NOT equal 0.75% of adults. You have to weight each percentage by the proportion of adults that are women or men respectively. Assuming a 50-50 sex ratio, that's (0.5)(0.45%) + (0.5)(0.30%) = 0.375%. Which amounts to about 10%, NOT 20%, of the adult homosexual population. 1 chooser in 10, not in 5. Thus undercutting your entire point. Not that 1 in 5 was a large proportion to begin with.
ReplyDeleteUh, read the last paragraph again, ax. It is your math that is wrong, not Chairm's. As should be obvious, since if 32 percent of women and 12 percent of men say they chose to be homosexual there is no way the percentage for both men and women together could be less than 10 percent no matter what the ratio of male to female homosexuals was.
ReplyDeleteThen I invite you to point out my mathematical error. By the logic in Chairm's math, 100% of adult men + 100% of adult women = 200% of adults. Does this strike you as possible?
ReplyDeleteThough I see a source of ax's confusion here, I should add.
ReplyDeleteChairm said:
According to Black and Gates et al, 1.4% of women and 2.5% of men had exclusively same sex sexual partners over the last five years. [4]
Chairm, since 1.4 plus 2.5 equals 3.9, should this have read that of the 3.9 percent (of the adult polulation that is homosexual, 1.4 of this 3.9 is female, and 2.5 of this 3.9 is male? If this is the case, then you are certainly right, we add the 0.45 to the 0.30 and get 0.75 percent, and divide that by the 3.9. Otherwise, what the figures above would be saying is that the Black and Gates estimate of the homosexual percentage is about half of that derived from the Williams Institute estimate.
Nope. The source that Chairm cites clearly refers to 2.5% of men and 1.4% of women, not of adults.
ReplyDeleteIf so, then the confusion comes from the fact that these are two different estimates, probably of two different things.
ReplyDeleteThe Black and Gates estimate would indicate that about 1.95% of men and women together had exclusively same sex sexual partners over the last five years.
While the number derived from the Williams Institute estimate, and the CNN national exit poll, is that about 3.9% of adults are gay, lesbian, or bisexual.
Assuming both the Black/Gates and Williams/CNN estimates to be equally reliable, this would mean that only half of those who identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual have been exclusively homosexual over the last five years.
Applying the figures of 32% and 12% to the 1.4 percent of females and 2.5 percent of males who say they have been exclusively homosexual for five years, we estimate that of the female 1.4 percent, 0.45 of this chose to be homosexual, and of the male 2.5 percent, 0.30 percent chose to be homosexual.
Assuming a 50/50 male/female population as a whole, this means that 0.375 percent of the population that Black and Gates used as their base chose to be homosexual. On that point, you're right.
But you're wrong in dividing this by the Williams/CNN estimate of 3.9 percentage (the percentage of people identifying as gay, lesbian, or bisexual). You should be dividing it by Black and Gates' percentage of the total population that has been exclusively homosexual for five years, 1.95 percent. When you do that, the percentage comes to more than 19 percent.
ax: 1 chooser in 10, not in 5. Thus undercutting your entire point.
ReplyDeleteHow? It only takes one black swan to disprove the theory that all swans are white, not 1 in 10 or 1 in 5. The quote by the anti-vote attorney was:
"Science has taught us, even if history has not, that gays and lesbians do not choose to be homosexual any more than the rest of us choose to be heterosexual." [emphasis added]
And while you may say that 19 percent is not a very high percentage, it is likely higher than this as saying that you chose to be gay is not considered politically correct among gays and even lesbians today.
ReplyDeleteI might add, though, that I think that the idea that homosexuality is either a "choice" or that one is "born that way" is fallacious. In between, and probably far more frequent, is that environmental factors, in tandem with some biological tendencies, combine to create a situation where one feels that they were always homosexual and thus "born that way" even if they were not. And a "choice" may be influenced by these same factors as well.
As with so much relating to the issue of homosexuality, the question of its origin is too tainted by politics to be truly reliable at the present time.
Ax, I did make an error. Thanks for raising the point.
ReplyDeleteAs RK noted, I mistakenly used the 2.5% and 1.4% as proxies for self-reported choice.
Those percentages apply to self-reported behavior. It would be more clear to first convert the shares to numbers and then calculate the rate of choice.
My error, by the way, comes from the conventional wisdom (which is really more of a guesstimate with a very loose consensus) that male homosexuality is significantly more common than female homosexuality. Roughly, 1/3rd of the adult homosexual population is female and another 2/3rds male. And some very small fraction is bisexual. But that's freighted with all the problems of estimating the sexual orientation without a crystal clear definition of sexual orientation.
Let's put that aside and convert the shares reported by Black and Gates (Steps 1-3). And then calculate the rate of choice.
RK has covered some of this but I'll take it a step at a time.
Also, Op-ed is quite right. There is evidence that choice is a significant factor in estimating -- whatever criteria are used.
1. Of the general male adult population, 2.5% have been exclusively same-sexed during the past five years. That's 2.7 million men.
ReplyDelete2. Of the general female adult population, 1.4% or 1.6 million women.
3. In total: 4.3 million homosexual men and women as per self-reported behavior.
4. Based on the Williams Institute's estimate of 8.8 million homosexual men and women, about 49% have been exclusively same-sexed.
5. That's 1 chooser in 2 homosexual adults as per self-reported behavior.
R.K.,
ReplyDeleteYes, you finally got it. And the errors were Chairm's, not mine.
I do agree that the "choice"/"born that way" dichotomy is flawed. But consider your statement: if one feels that they were born homosexual, how is this meaningfully different from actually being born homosexual?
However, we could take another step and overlay self-reported choice ontop of self-reported behavior.
ReplyDelete1. The adult homosexual population will be estimated using only that set of people who self-reported exclusive same-sex behavior.
2. Based on the witness' testimony, 12% of the male portion and 32% of the female portion self-reported choice of sexual orientation.
3. Of the 4.3 million homosexual adults, 12% of 2.7 million men chose homosexual orientation (324 thousand); and 32% of 1.6 million women chose (512 thousand); for a total of 836 thousand or 19.4%.
4. That's about 1 chooser in 5 homosexual adults.
* * *
The witness' survey may not have been large enough. It may not have used a randomized sample.
So this second extrapolation depends on his survey sample being comprised of men and women who have been exclusively same-sexed during the past five years. But his sample may have been a mix in terms of behavior.
Either way, I don't see SSM supporters making these kinds of distinctions when it comes to claim of 1) purity of sexual orientation and 2) inclusiveness of who is and is not homosexually orientated.
RK hit the nail on the head, I think, when he pointed at the important distinction of gay identity politics. Gay is a socio-political construct and no social-political construct is in-born nor immutable.
A different approach would be to use the conventional wisdom whereby roughly 1/3rd of the homosexual adult population is female, which generally aligns with the Black and Gates survey results based on behavior.
ReplyDeleteThis approach is based on self-reported identification. And the witness' survey was based on self-reported choice or felt lack of choice.
1. The Williams estimate: 8.8 million openly homosexual adults.
(Note that the share of bisexual adults is probably small enough not to greatly distort this extrapolation. We can only get a rough idea and not a precise headcount, afterall.)
2. One-third female: two-thirds male: 5.9 million men; 2.9 million women.
3. Based on the witness' testimony, 708 thousand men and 928 thousand women chose. Total: 1.64 million.
4. That's 18.9% or about 1 chooser in 5 homosexual adults.
So even if a sample of self-reported identification is used rather than self-reported behavior, choice appears to be a significant factor.
I don't think that we can safely assume that there is a clearly identifiable -- or even self-identifiable -- population of homosexual adults whose homosexual orientation has been and continues to be unchangeable.
The changeablity, and the choice factor, appears more common among women; more women than men reside in same-sex households (which is a more inclusive category than registered relationships). This pattern holds as well for licensed SSMs. Add to this the preliminary evidence that more individuals who register partnerships (SSMs, civil unions, domestic partnerships) have been previously married (to the other sex natch) than have never been married. Add also the evidence that most children, by far, living in same-sex households were attained via the old fashioned way -- previous procreative relationships (typically marriages or marriage-like cohabitations). It adds up. Choice is very significant. And choice of behavior stands out most of all.
ax: Yes, you finally got it. And the errors were Chairm's, not mine.
ReplyDeleteBut earlier you said:
Which amounts to about 10%, NOT 20%, of the adult homosexual population.
Your error, ax, was in not seeing the obvious....that if 12 percent of men and 32 percent of women had any particular trait, there is no mathematical way that the percentage of the trait in the population of men and women total could be only 10 percent. Unless you use negative or imaginary numbers. Seeing that you were getting numbers this low should have automatically caused you to see that whatever error Chairm made, this low percentage could not have been the correct conclusion, and that you were thus missing the real problem. Chairm's conclusion about the percentage was in fact correct even if the way he arrived at it was in error.
But consider your statement: if one feels that they were born homosexual, how is this meaningfully different from actually being born homosexual?
Plenty different. I've always hated to eat vegetables, so much so that you could say that I feel like I was born to hate vegetables. Does this mean that I know that I was "born that way"? Does this mean that I should not even bother trying to eat and like vegetables, particularly since I'm at the age where I may have to?
R.K.,
ReplyDeleteNo, actually I saw it right away, before I posted my first comment. I was just waiting to see if anyone else would get it.
If so, that is not the way you presented it in your first comment. You definitely seemed to be saying that the accurate computation of the percentages showed that 10 percent of the total homosexual population chose to be gay (by their own description, that is).
ReplyDeleteWere you hoping that we would not notice that even though the steps were wrong, that the percentage was not? Were you trying to get us to discredit the percentage because the steps were in error?
I was wondering if you would notice. It seemed easier to let you recognize the error than to explain it myself.
ReplyDeleteFor what it is worth, I think all of us have read Olson's assertion the same way.
ReplyDeleteOlson said:
"Science has taught us, even if history has not, that gays and lesbians do not choose to be homosexual any more than the rest of us choose to be heterosexual."
I took this to mean that he was claiming that homosexual orientation and heterosexual orientation are both immutable.
In my blogpost I paraphrased:
Olson wrote that science has taught us that people "do not choose" to be homosexually orientated. He wrote that sexual orientation is immutable "to a very large extent".
There is another way to read what Olson asserted -- in light of the testimony of his expert witness.
Does it follow that he would mean that heterosexual adults choose their sexual orientation at the same rate as his expert attributed to homosexual respondents to his survey? One in five.
That is, 12% of heterosexual men (13 million) and 32% of heterosexual women (36 million) for a total of 49 million adults who choose heterosexual orientation.
Taken with the those who choose homosexual orientation, that's 50 million adults across the country.
If so, then, the heterosexual choosers outnumber the homosexual choosers "to a very large extent".
But, I think, Olson's intended meaning is as I, and the rest of us, originally took it. Yet that makes his assertion all the more difficult to stand-by, given his expert witness' survey results.
It is all balderdash, I think. And that's the point I was trying to make regarding Olson's deceptive rhetoric of certainty.
"How? It only takes one black swan to disprove the theory that all swans are white, not 1 in 10 or 1 in 5."
ReplyDeleteThe statistic that "90% of gay and lesbian individuals do not choose their orientation" is still pretty compelling. Though Olson may have chosen his words infelicitously, if it's true that 80-90% of homosexuals are possessed of an immutable sexual orientation, the existence of a minority whose orientation is mutable does not somehow disprove the majority's existence.
Put another way: Olson wasn't saying that all swans are white, and his argument doesn't fall apart if a single black swan exists.
Hi Phil,
ReplyDeleteWould it be as compelling if it read 50% as per the observation regarding exclusive same-sex sexual behavior compared with the openly homosexual adult population estimate?
Or, as extrapolated, 20% as per a subjective feeling of choice expressed in the expert's survey?
Or as illustrated by the four plaintiffs of which one chose a heterosexual relationship for 14 years before choosing differently (25%)?
The wide range of possible rates, based on the available evidence, compelling raises the question: by what criteria does the law -- and constitutional jurisprudence -- determine immutability?
Olson seems to assume, as do SSM supporters far and wide, that just showing-up for a license to SSM means the people are classifiable as "gay". That's not in the the anyplace that SSM has been imposed or enacted.
The science on this is inconclusive, contrary to Olson's assertion. He chose his words carefully, to have it both ways, and science did not choose his words for him.
Meanwhile the marriage law has no sexual orientation criterion for ineligiblity nor for eligiblity. Olson has read that into the law but the law did not did not decide that for him.
Olson was saying that sexual orientation is unchosen, except when it is. And that the marriage amendment classifies by sexual orientation, except that it doesn't unles one squints and reads the invisible ink.
Chairm,
ReplyDeleteAre you inferring that if a homosexual person is physically capable of having sex with a member of the opposite sex, then that person has "chosen" their sexual orientation?
For example, a gay man who is married to a woman for 8 years before coming out in 2009 counts in your statistics as someone who has "chosen" their orientation?
I'd contend that someone who comes out after years of marriage is evidence that, despite efforts to the contrary, many people cannot choose their orientation.
Phil,
ReplyDeleteWhile you are adamantly defending the premise that orientation is largely not chosen, I think the points being made are very valid. I don't want you to miss them in your effort to prop up your beliefs.
1) If one person who thinks they didn't chose their sexual orientation, then chooses it, does that invalidate everyone who thinks they can't choose it? (Hint: It is the same answer as someone who is happily married for some time only to discover later they are same-sex oriented).
That point, as well as Chairm's goes well beyond questioning physical capacity, it questions the reliability of self-identified traits.
2) While sexual orientation may or may not be a choice (which is a legitimate conclusion concerning the Olson's presentation) marriage is a choice. Are you going to call a marriage a sham because the person is in your mind a homosexual? If so, that shows exactly the harm you wish to do to marriage as an institution, if you ask me.
Marriage is a choice of commitment, and should remain strong even if sexual attraction dies (for accidents which disfigure, getting old and fat, or even discovering a new orientation).
The very fact that Olson (and perhaps you) demand marriage be neutered for the sake of homosexuality --the immutable dominant quality of a person's identity -- shows a underestimation of what marriage really means and should require. And it is exactly where this turns into the same ugly identity politics as was perpetrated by slave owners and racial segregationists.
I've said it before, I'm not going to require gays to marry someone of the other gender. But I'm not going to tell gays they can't get married -- when that marriage means at least integrating with the other gender in some meaningfully marital way. I'm not going to say any one can't do it, to be honest. I think that may keep people from exercising a right that we all have.
You can tell people that there is some identity that requires they have to segregate with others of that same identity. I won't. George Wallace may turn over in his grave with envy that the argument works for you and not for him, but I will not be a part of it.
Phil: The statistic that "90% of gay and lesbian individuals do not choose their orientation" is still pretty compelling.
ReplyDeleteSpeaking of infelicitous, who are you quoting? You are aware of what quote marks are for, aren't you?
The study was not designed to prove your mistaken quote, above. Self reporting one cannot choose does not prove one cannot. Actually having made a choice, however, does prove one can. That many respondents felt they chose their "orientation" tells us only that some can choose. It does not tell us that some cannot, let alone how many cannot.
The world is full of people who feel they have no choice in a matter but later demonstrate they do. Some people claim they can't stop smoking. Some even try stopping multiple times before they successfully do. Some people fail repeatedly at academics before graduating. Some people fail dieting over and over before finally losing weight. These are all examples of people who thought they could not change but then did. Thinking one cannot choose does not make it so.
I'd contend that someone who comes out after years of marriage is evidence that, despite efforts to the contrary, many people cannot choose their orientation.
What do you "contend" about people who cheat on a spouse, like your example above, but with someone of the opposite sex? What does that prove they "cannot choose?"
The fact is, when someone ends a marriage in pursuit of homosexual sex, those trying to advance gay identity politics celebrate the infidelity as ending a sham. What is truly telling is not so much that these advocates find individual marriages less important than their identity politics, but that these are the same people who are trying to neuter marriage for the rest of us.
On Lawn:
ReplyDelete"If one person who thinks they didn't chose their sexual orientation, then chooses it, does that invalidate everyone who thinks they can't choose it?"
No, the existence of a person who changes their mind and/or believes they have chosen their sexual orientation does not necessarily invalidate the stance of people who believe they didn't or can't choose their orientation.
There are several logical possibilities--for example, sexual orientation may occur differently in different individuals, or it may be that it is not a dichotomy. (For example, some humans have brown eyes and some have blue eyes. Others have green, hazel, or grey, and some people have two different-colored eyes.) The existence of a person who is completely capable of being attracted to either sex--what some might call a "bisexual"--does not disprove the existence of homosexuals or heterosexuals.
"Are you going to call a marriage a sham because the person is in your mind a homosexual?"
I wouldn't say that a marriage is necessarily a sham because a person is a homosexual married to a person of the opposite gender, but it certainly doesn't strike me as an ideal situation for either partner. Would you want your daughter to marry a gay man? Would it bother you at all if you were a man married to a woman who revealed to you that, try as she might, she could not experience physical attraction to any men?
"I've said it before, I'm not going to require gays to marry someone of the other gender."
Yes, but you're fine with preventing them from marrying someone of the same gender. In the same way, anti-miscegeny laws treated everyone equally: everyone was free to marry someone of their own race. Your thinking here actually fits anti-miscegeny even more neatly than it fits anti-SSM laws, because while race and gender are widely accepted to be immutable, far more experts believe in people who are primarily capable of being attracted to their own sex than believe in people who are primarily capable of being attracted to a race other than their own.
op-ed:
ReplyDelete"Speaking of infelicitous, who are you quoting? You are aware of what quote marks are for, aren't you?"
I was using quotation marks to set off a distinct phrase within the sentence, but if my informal punctuation caused confusion, I apologize.
"The study was not designed to prove your mistaken quote, above. Self reporting one cannot choose does not prove one cannot."
Okay. My point was that the following two statements/statistics are similarly compelling:
1. Gay and lesbian individuals do not choose their orientation.
2. Ninety percent of gay and lesbian individuals do not choose their orientation.
Since you're arguing with me not about this point but about the makeup of the study itself, it sounds like you agree with the point that I was making: the second statement, if true, is not automatically unpersuasive. If it were true, it would in fact be pretty compelling.
"Some people fail dieting over and over before finally losing weight. These are all examples of people who thought they could not change but then did."
This last example is interesting. Do you believe that the existence of people who can lose weight and keep it off disproves the very existence of people who are genetically predisposed to being fat?
"The fact is, when someone ends a marriage in pursuit of homosexual sex, those trying to advance gay identity politics celebrate the infidelity as ending a sham."
Actually, op-ed, in my hypothetical example, I didn't specify either that homosexual sex took place or that the marriage ended. My example was "someone who comes out after years of marriage." You can come out without having sex or cheating on your spouse.
Now, it is possible that if a husband comes out to his wife and tells her that he is gay, the couple will choose to end their marriage. It's possible the two may want to continue the marriage, and I'm sure that happens in some cases, but either way it is irrelevant to my argument. Surely you aren't suggesting that a husband should lie to his wife (if he realizes after some time that he is gay) or continue lying to his wife (if he kept it a secret when they married)?
I think the issue here is that you're quibbling with what a sexual orientation is, or more specifically what a homosexual or heterosexual person is.
In my view, a homosexual man is a male who is attracted to other males in the way that heterosexual males are attracted to women. A man who is attracted to men but is capable of having sex with women is not heterosexual or bisexual, just as a heterosexual man who remains celibate before marriage is not "an asexual." (And a heterosexual man who has sex with a man for money, for example, doesn't become bisexual or homosexual as a result.)
Behavior and orientation are two different things. Handedness is probably the closest correlation to sexual orientation: most humans are right-handed, and a minority of humans are left-handed. It is possible for right-handers to use their left hands and for left-handers to use their right hands, but that does not necessarily mean that handedness is never an innate quality.
Phil: ...if my informal punctuation caused confusion, I apologize.
ReplyDeleteFear not. Just because one is incorrect does not mean that one "caused confusion."
...the following two statements/statistics are similarly compelling:
That is your call, but the first statement is false, according to the research cited at trial, and therefore not compelling.
...it sounds like you agree with the point that I was making...
"Sounds like" is one of those weasel phrases that means whatever comes next really never was heard.
The point with which I was disagreeing was your interpretation of the conclusion of the study. I actually find this other point you claim I "sound like [I] agree with" to be an irrelevant non sequitur. So does that mean I agree with it or disagree with it?
...the second statement, if true, is not automatically unpersuasive.
Unpersuasive of what?
Whatever it is "not...unpersuasive" of, if it is true that would make it more persuasive than the first statement simply because the first statement is false.
If it were true, it would in fact be pretty compelling.
"Pretty compelling?" Is that like being mostly pregnant?
If the number were 50%, would it be less persuasive (of whatever it is supposed to persuade one of)? What about 10%? What about 1%? Finally, what if it were 0%?
This last example is interesting.
I actually thought all three examples were interesting.
Do you believe that the existence of people who can lose weight and keep it off disproves the very existence of people who are genetically predisposed to being fat?
No, and that clearly wasn't the point, speaking of non sequiturs. In fact the person who lost the weight and kept it off could be just such a "genetically predisposed" person. How do you propose we tell, anyway?
What it does prove, however, is that just because someone thinks they cannot choose does not prove they actually cannot, which contradicts your reading of the study's results as "Ninety percent of gay and lesbian individuals do not choose their orientation." Pointing out that contradiction was the point.
And what of my other, less "interesting" examples? Like the smoker, for instance, does the fact that someone stops smoking and doesn't start again disprove the very existence of people who are genetically predisposed to smoking? If it does disprove any genetic smoking predisposition, how should that affect policy? If it does not disprove any genetic smoking predisposition, how should that affect policy?
Surely you aren't suggesting that a husband should lie to his wife...
There you go again with another false dichotomy. Is it "lying" if a husband does not tell his wife he finds some other woman sexually appealing? You never did answer my question about the husband cheating with another woman. What would that prove the husband "cannot choose?"
(if he realizes after some time that he is gay)
Wait, you mean he didn't "realize" it before? I thought you were arguing that "orientation" was immutable. Now you're saying that someone could be happily married and then suddenly "realize" they have been wrong all this time about their orientation.
Handedness is probably the closest correlation to sexual orientation...
Apparently not, since I don't know anyone who suddenly "realized" they were left handed after years of being right handed.
The point with which I was disagreeing was your interpretation of the conclusion of the study.
ReplyDeleteI did not interpret the study; I was merely responding to your statement that the existence of "1 chooser in 10" would be a "black swan" that disproves the notion that homosexuality can be innate.
It is possible that something else might disprove said notion, but my point is entirely accurate. When I say something that is true, you may choose to agree with it or to ignore it. But contradicting me on the basis of a straw man is unnecessary.
As wrote in my first post in this dicussion, "if it's true that 80-90% of homosexuals are possessed of an immutable sexual orientation, the existence of a minority whose orientation is mutable does not somehow disprove the majority's existence."
The phrase that begins with "if it's true" was my way of being specific about the point that I was making.
You may find my point to be an irrelevant non sequitur, but it was a response to a fallacious argument you made.
Wait, you mean he didn't "realize" it before? I thought you were arguing that "orientation" was immutable. Now you're saying that someone could be happily married and then suddenly "realize" they have been wrong all this time about their orientation.
Sure, why not? Most people assume they are just like everyone else, and it can take years to realize that, in fact, they are different. A person might realize they have a gambling problem after years of telling themselves that most everybody loses a little money at the track. A person might realize they have perfect pitch after years of thinking that most everybody can hit a note on cue.
Is it "lying" if a husband does not tell his wife he finds some other woman sexually appealing?
It certainly can be, yes. Especially if she asks him directly.
Now, please answer my question directly: if a man is attracted exclusively to men, and has never been sexually attracted to any woman, is that something he should keep secret from his wife?
What do you "contend" about people who cheat on a spouse, like your example above, but with someone of the opposite sex? What does that prove they "cannot choose?"
I don't contend anything about them; I didn't bring cheaters up. I certainly believe people can choose who they have sex with, but I don't know that it follows that people can choose who they are attracted to, specifically, or that people can choose which gender they are attracted to, generally.
Apparently not, since I don't know anyone who suddenly "realized" they were left handed after years of being right handed.
Yes, but apparently it happens. Paul McCartney thought he was right-handed until he tried to learn to play the guitar.
(http://www.scribd.com/doc/26202678/Paul-Gambaccini-Paul-McCartney-in-His-Own-Words)
More to the point, everyone goes through years where they don't know whether they're left-handed or right-handed: starting from birth and progressing to the point where a parent notices that we are favoring one hand or the other. Similarly, humans are unlikely to know whether they're straight or gay until they start to experience sexual attractions to other humans. Children who are right-handed are right-handed whether they have a word for it or not. Heterosexuals are heterosexuals whether they consider themselves to possess that trait or not.
op-ed: Is it "lying" if a husband does not tell his wife he finds some other woman sexually appealing?
ReplyDeletePhil: It certainly can be, yes. Especially if she asks him directly.
In which case, I will say, she is more responsible for causing damage to the marriage than he is.
And Phil, is it thus your contention that if a husband cannot swear to himself that he does not find some other woman sexually attractive, he should get divorced?
ReplyDeleteIs it your contention that if a couple cannot swear that neither of them will ever find someone else sexually attractive, they should not get married?
Phil: I did not interpret the study
ReplyDeleteNo? Then where did you get the "90%" figure if not from assuming that everyone who claimed they did not choose, in fact, did not?
...your statement that the existence of "1 chooser in 10" would be a "black swan" that disproves the notion that homosexuality can be innate.
Speaking of straw men, that would be akin to arguing the existence of a black swan (or 1 in 10 black swans) disproves that any white swans exist. What I actually said was "It only takes one black swan to disprove the theory that all swans are white, not 1 in 10 or 1 in 5."
You may find my point to be an irrelevant non sequitur,
I do.
...but it was a response to a fallacious argument you made.
I made, or your straw man made. In the future, please carry on conversations with your straw man without involving me, perhaps on your straw man's own blog.
Sure, why not? Most people assume they are just like everyone else...
Wait, so now he only "assumed" a sexual attraction to his wife? We don't even know we're sexually attracted to whom we think we are? You are stretching your argument beyond absurdity.
It certainly can be, yes.
"It certainly can be" is another weasel phrase that means often, at least, it is not.
Now, please answer my question directly: if a man is attracted exclusively to men, and has never been sexually attracted to any woman, is that something he should keep secret from his wife?
Yes. Instead, he should continue to love, honor, and cherish her like he promised her when he married. Now you answer your question "directly."
I didn't bring cheaters up.
Fair enough, let me rephrase. What do you "contend" about a husband who leaves his wife, in pursuit of heterosexual sex? What does that prove he "cannot choose?" Does it prove he was only assuming he was sexually attracted to his wife and that instead he was sexually attracted to this other woman all along?
Paul McCartney thought he was right-handed until he tried to learn to play the guitar.
False. Paul knew he was left handed. What he didn't know was that guitars can be as well.
Similarly, humans are unlikely to know whether they're straight or gay until they start to experience sexual attractions to other humans.
And not similarly, they apparently don't know even then. They might be just "assuming."
Phil: does not disprove the existence of homosexuals or heterosexuals.
ReplyDeleteAh, yes. The No true Scotsman defense.
You know, its impossible to disprove that Bigfoot exists also. For no matter how many times people claim there is evidence, and it gets shot down, we don't know exactly what the true Bigfoot is to say that the evidence to the contrary has really ruled it out.
Now my point is not that a true homosexual does or does not exist. My point is simply that the true homosexual is just an ideal, a realm far away and safe from scientific authority.
So if we are going to deal with it as an ideal, then I will happily repeat my aversion to the same as a contradiction to the ideal of free will...
You can tell people that there is some identity that requires they have to segregate with others of that same identity. I won't. George Wallace may turn over in his grave with envy that the argument works for you and not for him, but I will not be a part of it.
How that operates contrary to the prospect of free will of choosing marriage is also in that same comment.
I see you chose to say nothing of it, so perhaps it simply needed to be pointed out again.
That is the main point, in case you really need a fine point put on it. Just a few remarks on your other points...
Phil: -for example, sexual orientation may occur differently in different individuals, or it may be that it is not a dichotomy.
ReplyDeleteRarely are these complex issues with many influences as absolute as you are portraying homosexuality. The realm of the bell curve is the antithesis of the extremes and absolutes you are claiming to exist.
Asking me questions is kind of like pulling a gun on a cop, you know what you are going to get...
Would you want your daughter to marry a gay man?
I want my daughter to marry someone who will commit to loving, honoring and cherishing her no matter how much or little they are sexually attracted to her.
I don't care if they are gay or not.
Would it bother you at all if you were a man married to a woman who revealed to you that, try as she might, she could not experience physical attraction to any men?
When I was younger and more immature, that would have bothered me. Now, I find the commitment to love me anyways to be much more beautiful and meaningful. Attraction will always be here today, gone tomorrow. I would be much more bothered if their love and commitment were based on such a fickle hormone.
I know anyone who wants a happy marriage that will last, more then a happy wedding day and honeymoon as long as they are young and attractive, understands this completely.
Homosexuals and Heterosexuals are not that unalike, there is a lot of room to understand each other's issues. The reason I am worried about the current homosexual dogma is that these issues for them are excuses to not show love and commitment.
Phil: Yes, but you're fine with preventing them from marrying someone of the same gender
False. I am not keeping them from the relationship they themselves think they have. I am not trying to keep them from getting recognition from the government for the relationship they define for themselves. I just argue with the label they are using to describe it.
Clearly it isn't a marriage, since that expects (and should for everyone's sake continue to expect) love, honor, and commitment for the sake of each spouse and the children they potentially have together.
If we define sweatpants to be seat belts, then what do we do to encourage people to continue to really use seat belts for their protection and others?
Your thinking here actually fits anti-miscegeny even more neatly than it fits anti-SSM laws
Anti-miscegeny laws were found, by the Loving Court, to be a bolstering of a "true scottsman" style identity ideal. They found that it created a class society where whites were not able or meant to mingle with a person of certain races in a marital way.
Your own segregationist arguments (i.e. homosexual dogma) much closer align with the segregationists who prosecuted the Loving marriage, then with the ideal that the court established -- the ability to choose and integrate.
R.K.: In which case, I will say, she is more responsible for causing damage to the marriage than he is.
ReplyDeleteOk. Since it's a hypothetical example based on a hypothetical question, I'm not sure how much value there is in judging the woman in question. It is possible that such a question would damage a marriage; it's possible that a couple could be accustomed to the kind of frank communication such that a question like that wouldn't be a big deal. It really doesn't matter, however, in terms of the topic at hand.
R.K.:
Is it your contention that if a couple cannot swear that neither of them will ever find someone else sexually attractive, they should not get married?
No, but if you are not attracted to the person that you are marrying, you are being deceptive if you allow them to think that you are.
Once married, couples ought to communicate about important things. One way to determine if something is important enough to tell it to your spouse is to try to figure out if it is something they would want to know.
The remaining quoted text is from op-ed:
No? Then where did you get the "90%"[...]
"1 chooser in 10" leaves 9 out of 10, or 90%, remaining.
What I actually said was "It only takes one black swan to disprove the theory that all swans are white, not 1 in 10 or 1 in 5."
My point was that the existence of a person who chooses their sexuality does not disprove the existence of people who do not choose their sexuality. If my point is not in conflict with what you meant earlier, then it sounds like we both agree: the existence of "choosers" does not disprove the existence of people who may be innately homosexual.
In which case, we needn't argue this point, because we both agree.
Wait, so now he only "assumed" a sexual attraction to his wife? We don't even know we're sexually attracted to whom we think we are? You are stretching your argument beyond absurdity.
It's entirely possible that a man who realizes he is gay after years of marriage assumed that he was attracted to his wife in the same way that most men are attracted to their wives. That's not a stretch; in fact, it is the status quo. It happens.
Since there is no way to compare your feelings of attraction to the feelings that other people feel, we all make assumptions about whether we are like or unlike our peers. Most of us never need to question these assumptions, probably because most of us are very similar to the majority.
"It certainly can be" is another weasel phrase that means often, at least, it is not.
I think a better way to describe my response is to call it accurate, not a "weasel phrase." It is not accurate to say (in response to your question) either "it is always lying" or "it is never lying." It _is_ accurate to say, "It can be lying."
You, as an intelligent person, realize this. You are arguing about it for no reason, as if I had claimed "Yes, it's always lying." Accept that there are few absolutes when it comes to interpersonal communication. If that leads to weasel phrases, then so be it.
Now you answer your question "directly."
ReplyDeleteThe question was: "If a man is attracted exclusively to men, and has never been sexually attracted to any woman, is that something he should keep secret from his wife?"
I will answer directly: no. The issue is too important to keep it a secret; it is not the same as the natural waning of physical attraction as a relationship proceeds along its course. To keep such a thing from your spouse is to deceive someone to whom you owe honesty.
This does not mean that you must divorce them, or that they must divorce you, etc. But if you love and honor your spouse, you will not lie to them.
Does it prove he was only assuming he was sexually attracted to his wife and that instead he was sexually attracted to this other woman all along?
No. There's a difference between the capacity to be attracted to someone and the actual attraction toward them. Men cheat on their wives all the time, and for different reasons. It's entirely possible a man might cheat on his wife with a woman to whom he is not attracted. An instance of cheating doesn't really prove much, unless you can get the full story from the man or woman involved.
As is clear from my comments earlier, the state-of-being-gay is not the same as cheating on your wife. I have known men who told their wives they were gay, but who had never had sex with another human being besides their wife.
Paul knew he was left handed.
Very well. The "Times Daily" appears to disagree with Wikipedia on this one (http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1842&dat=19840910&id=1gciAAAAIBAJ&sjid=esgEAAAAIBAJ&pg=1435,2463740), but the point is that a person can realize that they are left-handed, which is factually correct, whether the person in question is Paul McCartney, Southern Illinois University basketball player Tyrone Green, or a five-year-old who is just learning to write.
And not similarly, they apparently don't know even then. They might be just "assuming."
If your point is that sexuality is complicated, and there are people who assume they are straight but are not, or perhaps who assume they are gay but are not, I agree. Additionally, societal pressures to conform don't help anyone.
On Lawn:
ReplyDeleteAh, yes. The No true Scotsman defense.
Defense of _what_? What is the statement you seem to think I was defending when I made my perfectly defensible and accurate claim that "The existence of a person who is completely capable of being attracted to either sex--what some might call a "bisexual"--does not disprove the existence of homosexuals or heterosexuals."
The "No True Scotsman" fallacy involves shifting ground to narrowly define a target concept based on qualitative or immeasurable assumptions. It requires, as your link indicates, a universal claim that "All x are y" or "no x are y." I am doing the opposite; I'm claiming that _not_ all x are y.
So if we are going to deal with it as an ideal, then I will happily repeat my aversion to the same as a contradiction to the ideal of free will...
Are you claiming here that the existence of homosexuals or heterosexuals would contradict the ideal of free will?
If so, you seem to agree with my stance that there is a difference between sex and sexual orientation.
But if you're claiming that, since homosexuality is an ideal, we must act as if homosexuals don't exist, that's just silly. There's no such thing as a perfect circle, but that doesn't mean we put trapezoidal tires on our cars. You can try to force a square peg into a round hole, but that doesn't mean there's no such thing as a square peg.
You can tell people that there is some identity that requires they have to segregate with others of that same identity.
I never said that people are _required_ to "segregate" with others of the same identity, though I'll happily assert that it is probably better for all involved if gay people marry other gay people and heterosexuals marry heterosexuals. All marriage is a form of segregation, by your intepretation, wherein a person pledges themselves to exactly one other person for the rest of their life. So if it's wrong (based on your segregation argument) to say that a gay person should marry a gay person it's equally wrong to say that a man should marry a woman: the levels of segregation are equal.
I don't care if they are gay or not.
I wish more SSM opponents shared your honesty. I wish, in fact, that they would put slogans like this in their commercials and advertising.
Ads could depict a woman sitting at home while her attentive, doting husband, perhaps played by Clay Aiken or Johnny Weir, comes home and makes dinner. She could look directly into the camera and say, "He loves me. So what if he's gay?"
And the tag line for the commercial could be something like, "Vote no on Proposition 8. Gay men should marry women."
Now, I find the commitment to love me anyways to be much more beautiful and meaningful.
"Love" means a lot of different things. It sounds like you believe an ideal marriage involves what a social scientist might call "pragma." I'm no expert, but I'm not willing to accept without proof that all marriages can be successful without the presence of any kind of "eros."
I just argue with the label they are using to describe it.
If you mean that you support full state and federal recognition of gay civil unions or domestic partnerships with all of the rights and privileges afforded to married couples, then I can respect that. I don't necessarily agree that the word marriage ought to be withheld from those relationships, but I can respect where you're coming from.
On Lawn:
ReplyDeleteClearly it isn't a marriage, since that expects (and should for everyone's sake continue to expect) love, honor, and commitment for the sake of each spouse and the children they potentially have together.
How is that "clearly" not marriage? How, based on the sentence I just quoted, is a same-sex couple any different from a completely infertile mixed-sex couple?
the ability to choose and integrate.
If one of us is arguing against the ability to choose, it's not me.
Phil: Ok. Since it's a hypothetical example based on a hypothetical question, I'm not sure how much value there is in judging the woman in question. It is possible that such a question would damage a marriage; it's possible that a couple could be accustomed to the kind of frank communication such that a question like that wouldn't be a big deal. It really doesn't matter, however, in terms of the topic at hand.
ReplyDeleteActually it does, as it relates directly to the issue of whether or not marriage depends on sexual attraction, and more specifically, whether it depends on one being able to swear that they will never find anyone else as or more sexually attractive. By hinting that it is good or at least fair practice for one spouse to badger another about this you are making this relevant.
Being attracted to others is far less of a betrayal of a marriage than acting on that attraction is.
How is that "clearly" not marriage? How, based on the sentence I just quoted, is a same-sex couple any different from a completely infertile mixed-sex couple?
Simple. For one, when we see an infertile heterosexual couple, we have no idea that they cannot have children unless they tell us. They look no different from a fertile couple. And similarly, a couple that married in old age look exactly like a long-married elderly couple that has their own adult children. They do not sever the link between marriage and procreation in the obvious way that a same-sex couple does by being called "marriage".
Also, a same-sex couple can't consummate the marriage. Yes, consummation is more central to marriage than attraction.
Phil, relating to my last comment above, see my last question in the comments after this post.
ReplyDeleteHi Phil -- thanks for commenting further. I feel it is necessary to point out that the phrase "a completely infertile mixed-sex couple" is a nonsensical phrase.
ReplyDeleteI believe you are trying to make a distinction even as you are proposing that the intended distinction is one without a relevant difference. So I don't fault you for making that effort, however, perhaps you can restate to add greater clarity to your intended meaning.
Here's one of my older blogposts on the subject of mixed couples or what some SSMers had come to misname "interfertile couples".
Who is "interfertile," anyway?.
If you mean to say 'an infertile couple' there is no need to say such a couple is 'mixed'. No one-sexed scenario is fertile, subfertile, or infertile but is simply non-fertile. The lack of the other sex is not a variation of infertility.
We could discuss the great significance of this fact of humankind if you wish, but I'll await your clarification of your intended meaning.
Phil, your comments strongly suggest that you believe that a woman who has for years behaved and presented herself as homosexually orientated can in fact show she was heterosexually orientated all along by opting out of same-sex sexualized relationships and forming a conjugal relationship with a man.
ReplyDeleteThat would be the inverse of your remark:
I'd contend that someone who comes out after years of marriage is evidence that, despite efforts to the contrary, many people cannot choose their orientation.
Here is the issue that has been raised regarding immutability: either the characteristic is mutable or it is not.
Now, what is that characteristic? A pattern of behavior? A feeling? And how is it determined objectively that a person's sexual orientation has always been this but not that?
By Olson's rhetoric, and by his expert witness's testimony, there are about 50 million Americans whose sexual orientation is chosen, one way or another, rather than unchosen.
Maybe in your view unchosen is not the same as immutable? Or do you think that bisexuality is a defining characteristic of a much larger segment of the adult population than homosexuality? Something on the order of five times larger?
As I said, I think the range of rates that are discernible from the available evidence casts considerable doubt that this can be deemed, scientifically as per Olson, as an immutable classification.
R.K.:
ReplyDeleteBeing attracted to others is far less of a betrayal of a marriage than acting on that attraction is.
Sure. But lying is also a betrayal of a marriage, however minor. And if your wife asks you if you are attracted to someone--her sister, your waitress, a famous actress--and you tell her "no" when you actually are, that is lying, whether or not it was a good idea for your wife to ask it. So the concept of "whether or not it was a good idea to ask it" is irrelevant, because we both agree that lying is lying.
Now, it may be that you believe there are times when it is good or important to lie to one's spouse. So be it. Just admit that, instead of casting aspersions on a hypothetical woman's hypothetical decision to ask her husband a non-hypothetical question.
They look no different from a fertile couple.
Wow. I really, really wish that more SSM opponents had your honesty. That's your argument, huh? They "look" like a fertile couple, and therefore they are different from couples who don't "look" right to you.
Wow. I sincerely hope that they put that argument front and center in the next anti-marriage-equality campaign.
Yes, consummation is more central to marriage than attraction.
What is the purpose of consummation, for couples who cannot conceive children?
Chairm:
I feel it is necessary to point out that the phrase "a completely infertile mixed-sex couple" is a nonsensical phrase.
If your politics cause you to have a pet peeve with a phrase that I used, that's your own issue. The truth is, you knew exactly what I meant. I try to use overly-specific terms like "a completely infertile mixed-sex couple" to mean mixed-sex couples who cannot possibly conceive children because in the past, whenever I bring up "infertile couples," some well-intentioned person with poor reasoning ability counters with "Infertile couples can still conceive children! It happens all the time!"--as if I were talking about the _word_ infertile, and not the class of mixed-sex couples who cannot conceive children.
If I had used the phrase "an infertile heterosexual couple," you might have jumped down my throat for implying that all mixed-sex couples are possessed of heterosexual orientation, as you have done in the past.
So I used a carefully-worded phrase, and the result was that, while you knew exactly what I meant, you take umbrage with what you view as redundancy.
If you want to argue the semantics of the difference between "infertile" and "non-fertile," I guess that's your prerogative. My point is that there is no meaningful difference between a same-sex couple and an infertile (mixed-sex) couple.
If two consenting adults are incapable of conceiving a child together, the number of children that they can conceive is zero. Mathematically, zero equals zero.
Except, as R.K. points out: They "look" different.
Here is the issue that has been raised regarding immutability: either the characteristic is mutable or it is not.
ReplyDeleteThat is a false dichotomy. It is possible for a characteristic to be mutable in some persons and immutable in others. There are people who are right-handed, people who are left-handed, and people who are ambidextrous, for example. Some people can learn music quickly, others can never sing two notes in sequence.
The flimsiest of science supports the notion that sexual orientation, generally, can be changed. Yet opponents of same-sex marriage--and gay rights in general--cling to it, because it's the only way to make their positions seem remotely reasonable.
And yet, we know darn well that gay people exist. I used to cite Clay Aiken as an example: Look at Clay Aiken, I would say. Even though he has never publicly acknowledged his homosexuality, I am damn sure he's gay. And if you weren't trying to prove a political point, you would acknowledge that you know damn well he's gay, too. If you tried to be a matchmaker and set your sister up with Clay Aiken, unless she's incredibly naive, she would slap you and say, "#$%^@ you, Chairm! I don't want to marry a gay guy!"
Unfortunately, I can no longer cite Clay Aiken as my celebrity example of a man we all know damn well is gay even though he hasn't said so. Why? Because he said so, acknowledging that I was correct.
So how about Olympic figure skater Johnny Weir? He has never publicly acknowledged that he's gay. But I am quite certain that his sexual orientation is homosexual. If you like, you can fax him a copy of this blog comment and invite him to sue me for libel. But he won't. Because he's gay. And I know it, and if you are at all familiar with him, you know it. And we're not even scientists!
This is not to say that all gay people are alike, or that they all share the same traits. But some gay people seem to possess intrinsic qualities that differ from straight people. To ignore this is to cling to a position that defies common sense.
By Olson's rhetoric, and by his expert witness's testimony, there are about 50 million Americans whose sexual orientation is chosen, one way or another, rather than unchosen.
You're citing statistics about people whose sexual _behavior_ is chosen as if it implies that their sexual _orientation_ is chosen. That's a fundamental misunderstanding of what sexual orientation is. Virtually _all_ people's sexual behavior is chosen; it does not follow that all people are bisexual or that all people have a mutable sexual orientation.
Phil, your comments strongly suggest that you believe that a woman who has for years behaved and presented herself as homosexually orientated can in fact show she was heterosexually orientated all along by opting out of same-sex sexualized relationships and forming a conjugal relationship with a man.
ReplyDeleteYes, if a straight woman were in a same-sex relationship for years, that wouldn't change the fact that she's straight.
On the other hand, neither being in a same-sex relationship nor having sex with a man would "prove" what her orientation was, one way or the other. Sexual behavior and sexual orientation are two different things, and humans are perfectly capable of performing physical acts that are contrary to their nature.
If we lived in a world where women faced incredible societal pressure to enter into relationships with other women, and after years, a woman "came out" as heterosexual, I'd say that serves as evidence that heterosexuality can be innate.
Wow. I sincerely hope that they put that argument front and center in the next anti-marriage-equality campaign.
ReplyDeleteOh, so do I, Phil. And with it, the corollary question I was getting at, which is, of course: if we legalize same-sex "marriage" and declare it equal to opposite-sex marriage, are we not also declaring that non-creative forms of "sexual" contact are thus equal to the one type of sexual contact that is potentially creative (even when the couples are infertile)? Believe it or not, really putting this question out in the open is going to be much more effective for our side than yours.
And, yes, seeing a same-sex couple and calling them "married" will be saying to the whole culture, "All sexual contact is equal, and procreation is irrelevant to it."
Phil, do you believe that at least sexual contact is what marriage is defined around?
Also, can you answer the questions related to consummation that I asked at the end of the post I linked to?
Phil: ...does not disprove the existence...
ReplyDeleteOf bigfoot, aliens, witches, etc., etc. I am not here to argue your religiously held beliefs, particularly when you have so carefully crafted them to be outside the realm of scientific observation.
If my point is not in conflict with what you meant earlier,...
It is irrelevant.
...then it sounds like we both agree
"Sounds like" is a weasel phrase that means what follows was never actually said. It "sounds like" you believe in little green moon men because your statements don't contradict them.
...we needn't argue this point, because we both agree.
The point on which we both agree is that the plaintiff's statement was wrong, period.
It's entirely possible that a man who realizes he is gay after years of marriage assumed that he was attracted to his wife...
It's entirely possible that he is only "assuming" he is attracted to men now. Your "only assuming" refuge cuts both ways.
That's not a stretch
Yes, it is. Saying people don't know who they are attracted to is quite the stretch, an absurd stretch. It twists the definition of attraction from something real that we can feel to some ethereal and unobservable concept which we can only make guesses about. You have simply carefully concocted another unobservable concept to support the first.
...in fact, it is the status quo. It happens.
No. What "happens" is that men leave their wives in pursuit of homosexual sex. This bit about being sexually attracted but not really is just your unfalsifiable conjecture.
Since there is no way to compare your feelings of attraction to the feelings that other people feel...
Convenient for someone looking to remove his tenet of faith from the realm of scientific observation. We are capable of recognizing the feeling "attraction" even without comparing our feelings "to the feelings that other people feel."
I think a better way to describe my response is to call it accurate, not a "weasel phrase."
What is accurate and relevant is to point out that your statement shows that you do not believe it to be a lie, but merely that it can be.
You are arguing about it for no reason, as if I had claimed "Yes, it's always lying."
You mean as if you'd said something like "...continue lying to his wife (if he kept it a secret when they married)?" or "To keep such a thing from your spouse is to deceive..."? Surely you, as an intelligent person, realize that you in fact did make such a claim.
No. There's a difference between the capacity to be attracted to someone and the actual attraction toward them.
What difference? He clearly has always had a brunette "orientation." He clearly only assumed an attraction to his blond wife because he couldn't compare his feelings to others'. Just because some people can choose between blonds and brunettes doesn't mean the husband in this case could. That's not an absurd stretch.
Men cheat on their wives all the time, and for different reasons.
Wait a minute. You just spent all that time telling me you weren't talking about cheaters.
It's entirely possible a man might cheat on his wife with a woman to whom he is not attracted.
Maybe he's just assuming he's not attracted. Still doesn't sound absurd?
The "Times Daily" appears to disagree with Wikipedia on this one.
"Appears to" is one of those weasel phrases that means that whatever follows was never actually shown.
If your point is that sexuality is complicated...
It is not. Tell me you aren't really having this much trouble keeping up. My point is that your analogy between handedness and "orientation" is false.
Phil: The "No True Scotsman" fallacy involves shifting ground to narrowly define a target concept based on qualitative or immeasurable assumptions.
ReplyDeleteAnd that is different from your argument...how?
If so, you seem to agree with my stance that...
"Seem to agree" is one of those weasel phrases that... Oh, you know the drill.
"Vote no on Proposition 8. Gay men should marry women."
Phil, what did we say about where you should have arguments with your straw men?
I'm no expert,...
That's my nominee for Understatement of the Year.
I'm not willing to accept without proof that all marriages can be successful without the presence of any kind of "eros."
Another straw man. Are you having trouble finding your straw man's blog? Is that the problem?
On Lawn's point is that marriages cannot be successful without commitment. "Eros" is not a proxy for commitment.
Besides, of all the things you are willing to accept without proof this is the most implausible? Are you sure you're not just assuming you're not willing to stretch plausibility on this one? You haven't compared your feelings of willingness to anyone else's, after all.
If you mean that you support full state and federal recognition of gay civil unions or domestic partnerships with all of the rights and privileges afforded to married couples...
Another straw man? Phil, just deal with what On Lawn actually did say. You're starting to look dishonest. (Can I make that my second nominee?)
I don't necessarily agree that the word marriage ought to be withheld from those relationships...
Do you agree the word police should be withheld from soccer moms? Soccer moms sometimes need to make their way through traffic, too, you know. Soccer games have start times, even if you refuse to accept that.
Phil (to R.K.): it may be that you believe...
ReplyDelete"it may be" is another one of those weasel phrases so common to Phil's writing.
...there are times when it is good or important to lie to one's spouse...
And there's another strawman, also common to Phil's writing.
...casting aspersions on a hypothetical woman's hypothetical decision to ask her husband a non-hypothetical question.
Would that be the same as you "casting aspersions" on a "hypothetical" man's "hypothetical decision" not to discuss a "non-hypothetical" (but perhaps merely assumed) attraction?
I really, really wish that more SSM opponents had your honesty.
OK. So it's clear this phrase is Phil's way of saying he's about to cough up a big straw-man. Honesty is certainly not what Phil is displaying, but at least he is content that R.K. is.
That's your argument, huh?
No, that is a statement of fact, not an argument.
They "look" like a fertile couple, and therefore they are different from couples who don't "look" right to you.
There's the straw man. Only Phil's straw man is talking about what "look[s] right to" anybody.
Phil asked "How...is a same-sex couple any different from a completely infertile mixed-sex couple?"
R.K. responded "Simple. For one,... They look no different from a fertile couple."
This exactly answers what Phil asked. Phil, on the other hand, has no response to R.K. so he responds to his own straw man instead.
My point is that there is no meaningful difference between a same-sex couple and an infertile (mixed-sex) couple.
Ah. No meaningful difference, just like no true Scotsman.
Is appearance "meaningful?" Well, Phil certainly has yet to explain how it can be overcome.
1) How can all man-woman couples with a completely infertile member in fact know that is the case and not just apparently the case?
2) How does the government, who is issuing the license, know?
Another meaningful distinction which Phil overlooks is that the kind of infertility to which he refers when discussing a man-woman couple turns out to be an individual characteristic of one of the members, whereas that of the same-sex couple applies only to the pairing, itself. Either member or both members of a same-sex couple could, in fact, be fertile as he means it when talking about the man-woman couple. For those keeping score at home, constructing an argument by silently switching meanings is called an amphibology.
Phil (to Chairm): That is a false dichotomy.
ReplyDeleteThat may be the case, but it is Olson's false dichotomy.
The flimsiest of science supports the notion that sexual orientation, generally, can be changed.
No science whatsoever supports "orientation" as Phil defines it. After all, he has made it completely immune to observation. Observation is essential to anything scientific.
I would say. Even though he has never publicly acknowledged his homosexuality, I am d**n sure he's gay.
Why? We are only able to observe Clay's behavior, which Phil adamantly insists is not the same thing as his "orientation."
Because he said so, acknowledging that I was correct.
But Clay is likely only assuming. He can't compare his feelings with the feelings of anyone else, after all. His assumption could very well be wrong.
So how about Olympic figure skater Johnny Weir?
Same answer, actually.
You're citing statistics about people whose sexual _behavior_ is chosen as if it implies that their sexual _orientation_ is chosen.
There it is again, behavior and orientation are different.
Phil is misusing the dichotomy here, however. In fact the expert studied whether study participants felt they had chosen their "orientation," not whether they had chosen their behavior.
On the other hand, neither being in a same-sex relationship nor having sex with a man would "prove" what her orientation was, one way or the other.
Convenient.
Sexual behavior and sexual orientation are two different things,...
See? That's no straw man. Those are Phil's own words in contradiction to his treatment of Clay and Johnny, above.
humans are perfectly capable of performing physical acts that are contrary to their nature.
I agree.
Believe it or not, really putting this question out in the open is going to be much more effective for our side than yours.
ReplyDeleteNot if we're willing to be logical and consistent. I suspect that you hold the belief that all nonprocreative sex is illicit, and that's not a belief that most Americans share. Many Americans are icked out by the idea of gay sex, it's true, but they have no problem with the idea of, say, heterosexual oral sex.
The argument that infertile mixed-sex couples look like fertile heterosexual couples boils the anti-marriage-equality argument down to what it really is: penises and vaginas. A lesbian is not different in any meaningful way, when it comes to the "nature" or "purpose" of marriage, from a man who is incapable of fertilizing an egg, except that she has a vagina.
Very few marriage equality opponents are willing to admit this, however, because it makes them sound so crass.
Phil, do you believe that at least sexual contact is what marriage is defined around?
I think that _commitment_ is probably more important to marriage than sexual contact, but I also think that sexual intimacy is an important part of it. I just don't think it's my place (or yours) to dictate the positions that a couple takes when they're being intimate.
For example, if a young marine had his penis blown off (or her vagina disfigured) by a land mine while serving in Iraq, I would never say to them, "You can never get married, because you're not capable of vaginal sex." If they can find a person who loves them and is willing to commit to them, the way that they are intimate is much better left up to the couple than to me, you, or the government.
Many SSM opponents would find nothing wrong with such a marine being legally allowed to marry, because he did nothing "wrong" and it would be repugnant to exile him to perpetual bachelorhood without regard to his own feelings or those of his partner. Many of the same SSM opponents have no problem exiling gay people to perpetual bachelorhood because in their view, gay people are doing something "wrong." Perhaps that's animus?
Also, can you answer the questions related to consummation that I asked at the end of the post I linked to?
I may be able to, if you define consummation.
Yes, it is. Saying people don't know who they are attracted to is quite the stretch, an absurd stretch.
ReplyDeleteThank you! When it comes to sexual attraction, we should defer to the views of the person involved. That's what you meant, right?
In the case of my hypothetical example, I actually am good friends with a man who was married for eight years, wanted to be straight, thought he was straight, realized he was not attracted to women in the way he was attracted to men, and after much soul-searching, told his wife he was gay. He never once had sexual intimacy with a person other than his wife, either before or during their marriage.
You might find the example "absurd," but it's not unique. (That is, if you don't believe in the existence of my friend, you can easily find similar examples.) So, either you're saying that such men do not exist, which is demonstrably false, or you're saying that they do not know who they are attracted to now, which seems to contradict your quoted statement.
You have simply carefully concocted another unobservable concept to support the first.
Have you presented a concept of attraction that is more observable? Has anyone?
No. What "happens" is that men leave their wives in pursuit of homosexual sex.
So, in your view, no men who leave their wives in pursuit of homosexual sex are gay? None of them are homosexuals?
We are capable of recognizing the feeling "attraction" even without comparing our feelings "to the feelings that other people feel."
All of your arguments on this point boil down to this: no one has ever thought, or can ever think, that they are attracted to a person only to later realize that what they felt was not attraction. Self-reporting indicates that this phenomenon can occur, however rare, so if you have better evidence that proves that such a phenomenon can never occur, perhaps you'll present that.
You mean as if you'd said something like "...continue lying to his wife (if he kept it a secret when they married)?" or "To keep such a thing from your spouse is to deceive..."? Surely you, as an intelligent person, realize that you in fact did make such a claim.
You've lost the thread of the discussion. The question I was answering when I said "Yes, it can be," was your question about whether a man is lying when he tells his wife he's not attracted to another woman. This point really isn't worth arguing, unless you're grasping at straws, because we are both intelligent people who know that, in fact, "it can be" lying. To say otherwise is a false dichotomy: either it is always lying or it is always not, and then we can come up with a hypothetical situation to contradict the claim, which would be pointless. Wanna keep arguing about it? It's your blog; feel free.
Phil: I'm not willing to accept without proof that all marriages can be successful without the presence of any kind of "eros."
op-ed: Another straw man. Are you having trouble finding your straw man's blog? Is that the problem?
So, is eros important in a marriage or is it not?
1) How can all man-woman couples with a completely infertile member in fact know that is the case and not just apparently the case?
Chairm, please note this. As I mentioned, whenever I compare a same-sex couple to an infertile couple, someone always, always counters with "But not all infertile couples are really infertile!" as if that's relevant. I tried to use specific language, but that wasn't enough for op-ed.
Op-ed, truly infertile couples exist. When a woman has a complete hysterectomy, she cannot bear children. She knows this. Unless she lies to her spouse, he knows this. The fact that some couples are told that they are infertile when in fact they have a chance of conceiving a child is not the point.
Ah. No meaningful difference, just like no true Scotsman.
ReplyDeleteThe presence of exactly one more penis or vagina, and the absence of exactly one penis or vagina is the only difference. That difference is not meaningful. The ability to conceive children is a red herring which R.K., thankfully, has dispensed with. Instead, the way that a couple "looks" is the meaningful difference: resembling a couple that can conceive is the only reason he presents to permit infertile couples to marry but ban same-sex couples.
Do you agree the word police should be withheld from soccer moms? Soccer moms sometimes need to make their way through traffic, too, you know. Soccer games have start times, even if you refuse to accept that.
If a soccer mom meets all of the requirements to be a police officer, then no, we should not withhold the word from her. If she can go through the training and pass the tests, why on earth shouldn't she be a police officer? If we impose arbitrary boundaries: for example, if we tell her that she cannot be a police office because she is a woman, or because she has children, or because she does not "look" like a police officer, then we are being unfairly discriminatory.
"Appears to" is one of those weasel phrases that means that whatever follows was never actually shown.
What is the point of this nit-picking? You use the term "weasel phrase" every time I make a carefully qualified statement. Of course the "Times Daily" wasn't disagreeing with Wikipedia; the "Times Daily" article was written years before the Wikipedia article. But its content contradicts Wikipedia, so it appears to disagree. But even that is a small point, since all I was doing was establishing the existence of people who realize that their handedness is not what they previously thought. Such persons exist, whether Paul McCartney is one of them is not really important, is it?
And that is different from your argument...how?
Phil (earlier): It requires, as your link indicates, a universal claim that "All x are y" or "no x are y." I am doing the opposite; I'm claiming that _not_ all x are y.
And there's another strawman, also common to Phil's writing.
ReplyDeleteIt's not a straw man when I am not refuting the statement. I said, "It may be that..."
Another meaningful distinction which Phil overlooks is that the kind of infertility to which he refers when discussing a man-woman couple turns out to be an individual characteristic of one of the members, whereas that of the same-sex couple applies only to the pairing, itself.
That's not quite accurate. If, for example, both men in a couple are capable of producing viable sperm, then the difference between that couple and a mixed-sex post-hysterectomy couple is the physical makeup of _one_ of the men. Just like the infertile woman, he lacks a functioning womb. But both couples contain one male who chose to enter into a relationship with a person who lacks functioning ovaries. The fact that in the same-sex couple, the ovary-lacking individual possesses a penis is interesting, but hardly relevant, unless you're making the claim that gay men have a moral obligation to marry and impregnate women. Which, to be honest, some people do argue. But you can just as easily argue that, logically, a fertile straight man is morally obligated to find a fertile woman.
It takes a lot of rhetorical wrangling to draw a distinction between one class of men who choose to marry a partner who is incapable of conception and another class of men who choose to marry a partner who is incapable of conception. As R.K. admits, it boils down to how they "look."
No science whatsoever supports "orientation" as Phil defines it.
Actually, although most sexual orientation studies necessarily rely on self-reporting, there are several that have found unchosen physiological or biological similarities among people who self-identify as "gay" or as "straight." Would you like me to link you to some such studies?
But Clay is likely only assuming. He can't compare his feelings with the feelings of anyone else, after all. His assumption could very well be wrong.
Look, op-ed. I made the claim that it is possible for a person to assume that they are attracted to a gender that they are not actually attracted to. I did not claim that all persons are only assuming they are attracted to the gender they are attracted to. So, either you accept that my claim was true, or you make the counter claim that no person can ever possibly assume they are attracted to a gender that they aren't.
You are arguing against a straw man: that all persons are only assuming they're attracted to a gender.
Convenient.
No, it's really inconvenient, isn't it? But it's also true.
See? That's no straw man. Those are Phil's own words in contradiction to his treatment of Clay and Johnny, above.
Actually, no. I claimed that I was d*mn certain of their orientations without knowing anything about their sexual activities.
Look, I am perfectly willing to make the statement that Clay Aiken and Johnny Weir are gay. Do you disagree? Do you want to make the claim that Clay and Johnny are straight? It's not an obscure philosophical point; it's the real world. Some people are gay.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletePhil, you have offered a comparison.
ReplyDeleteYou said: "My point is that there is no meaningful difference between a same-sex couple and an infertile (mixed-sex) couple."
What are you actually comparing?
1. A same sex couple.
2. An infertile couple.
What do they have in common that is meaningful to your comparision? That each is a twosome. At least in appearances.
Infertility is opposite-sexed, not same-sexed, as you explained when you acknowledged the redundancy of "infertile mixed sex couple". That means the necessary presence not of two persons but of a two-sexed duo -- a man and a woman. Hence "couple" is a meaningful distinction. It is a couple of sexes, in this sense.
For the same-sex scenario, the lack of the other sex is a distinction that is meaningful. Two persons of the same sex can not be a fertile couple and cannot become a infertile couple. The duo is nonfertile. That is a constant feature and not something that indicates that fertility has been broken due to ill-health, dire circumstances, or maturation. Nonfertility does not carry that baggage. Nonfertility is not a variable feature of "a same-sex couple".
I used the word, nonfertility, as a redundancy, actually, to emphasize the lack of the other sex. The one-sexed scenario is sex in the singular, in that sense. It is not a couple of sexes.
The lone individual also lacks the other sex. Likewise a same-sex moresome or an endless parade of persons of the same sex. Hence "couple" is not a meaningful common feature between #1 and #2.
Couple and single are meaningful differences. A couple of sexes; a singular sex.
* * *
Phil, let's cutaway the underbrush in considering what are you actually comparing.
You said you are not comparing semantic differences. I've explained here that these differences are far more significant than quibbles about political use of words. We've acknowledged redundancies that are used to emphasize important meanings.
Let's not, then, conflate the lack of the other sex with infertility. Nor use a political broom to sweep away the meaning of "couple" as it applies to infertility and does not apply to the lack of the other sex.
I think that you are suggesting that a same-sex couple ought to be eligibile to marry precisely because of sexual attraction.
You don't mean that the particular individuals must prove they are sexually attracted one to the other; nor that same-sex sexual attraction is mutable in these individuals. They'd qualify as a twosome on the assumption that their showing up for a license gives the appearance of homosexual orientation. Indeed, one or both of the individuals might turnout to be oriented differently. It might be a "mixed" couple in the sense of sexual orientation. But based on appearances, you'd assume otherwise.
So you are not dismissive of appearances, right?
In this light, RK's response is right on point.
Phil, you are depending on transforming the rarest of apparent exceptions into a new general rule. I'll explain what I mean, but you might consider stating your proposed general rule and we can discuss its meaning.
ReplyDelete* * *
You go to extremes. Stepping on a mine and being severely harmed is hardly on par with freely chosing to form a one-sexed arrangement. (By the way, that choice is open to people and they need not confine themselves to 'singlehood').
A woman does not wear a mark on her forehead that declares that she has undergone lifesaving surgery.
Marriage law is about a public-sexual type of relationship but it also protects the private aspect of that type of relationship. Why you'd imagine otherwise, I dunno.
On one hand you are clear about government not peaking into the bedroom to view "sexual positions" but on the other hand you are deliberately opaque about government not intruding on private medical conditions and infirmities.
Nonfertility which is a distinctive feature of all one-sexed arrangements -- a onesome, twosome, or moresome. It is not unique to a homosexual subset of one-sexed scenarios.
The marriage law does not inquire into sexual orientation. There is no homosexual criterion for ineligibility and no heterosexual criterion for eligiblity. The government does not peer into the private lives of married people -- unless they bring up the opposite-sexed sexual basis for the marital presumption of paternity. Which is the same sexual basis for consummation, provisions for annulment, adultery-divorce, and so forth.
I take it then that you have abandoned infertility as a point of comparison. You have abandoned mutability.
You are have now changed your comparison to one between the very broad and nebulous notion of homosexuality -- and the hard cases featuring physical disabilities. That makes for a truckload of very meaningful differences.
* * *
The original blogpost is about the testimony of Olson's expert witness. Do you, Phil, dismiss that testimony? If not, why not? If yes, why?
Phil, a sidenote: your points have been discussed before here at Opine and you might want to check our archives or use the search utility. If you have difficulty finding the already published refutations of your points in our archives, let me know. You are not covering new ground here.
ReplyDeleteRight handed, left handed...
ReplyDeleteUsing handedness as an analogy we find that everyone can do the same tasks with their left hand that they can with their right, just not as efficiently. It isn't as automatic ... its a conscious choice to do so. But then don't complain to me, it wasn't my analogy to begin with.
Some people may be without an arm, and they are handicapped. You can see the lack of an arm. But how are they really different then the rest of us? Well, they are handicapped, that is the difference.
An infertile couple spends money to try to overcome their handicap. A same-sex couple may spend money to overcome mother nature. One is a handicap, is the other?
A woman on a porch thinks that she is lucky she is loved, so what if he's gay. A million miles away, a true evil person(tm) lies on the deathbed grinning, Why? As an evil person who really did good works an entirely life, no one ever suspected otherwise! He truly lied and fooled everyone, and what greater pleasure for an evil guy? Sure good deeds happened, but that doesn't disprove he's a true evil person. His wife says, "so what if he's evil?"
A good person is up for trial, he is accused of really being evil. The prosecutor pulls the identity card! "Look at him, who by looking at him can tell he's not an evil person". No one can, the prosecutor looks sure to win. Poor guy.
The defense attorney learns from his loss. The next person, who everyone saw killing 20 people in McDonalds, is going to be saved. "There are people oriented towards good, and people oriented towards evil. Equality demands we treat them the same. Who are you going to trust, me or your lying eyes?"
And the woman goes home to her loving husband, enjoy a romantic night together, and all the while he is safe knowing that his friends won't harass him because they know deep down he really is gay.
All preordained
ReplyDeleteA prisoner in chains
A victim of venomous fate.
Kicked in the face,
You can pray for a place
In heaven's unearthly estate.
You can choose a ready guide in some celestial voice.
If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.
You can choose from phantom fears and kindness that can kill
I will choose a path that's clear
I will choose free will.
Each of us
A cell of awareness
Imperfect and incomplete.
Genetic blends
With uncertain ends
On a fortune hunt that's far too fleet.
You can choose a ready guide in some celestial voice.
If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.
You can choose from phantom fears and kindness that can kill
I will choose a path that's clear
I will choose free will.
--Rush...
What do they have in common that is meaningful to your comparision? That each is a twosome. At least in appearances.
ReplyDeleteActually, in my view, they have virtually _everything_ in common. As I said, there are no meaningful differences between same-sex couples and mixed-sex infertile couples. There is no meaningful difference between a person who is born without ovaries because he was born with a penis and testicles, and a person who was born without ovaries because of some birth defect.
I am not drawing distinctions. I do not consider "looks" to be a meaningful distinction.
Two persons of the same sex can not be a fertile couple and cannot become a infertile couple.
Chairm, you are arguing semantics. As I wrote earlier, whenever I mention an infertile mixed-sex couple, some well-meaning person with poor reasoning ability always responds as if I were talking about the _word_ infertile, and not the class of mixed-sex couples who cannot conceive children.
And here you are, doing exactly what I described. All couples who are incapable of conceiving children are the same, in terms of their ability to conceive children. Whether you want to call them "infertile" or "nonfertile" or "asdflkjdgsfl;kj," they all conceive the same number of children: zero. Zero equals zero. Math, unlike language, is remarkably consistent.
The arguments are always circular: for example, that same-sex couples are doing something wrong, because it's wrong to have sexual relationship that cannot result in children. But having heterosexual sex with a person who cannot possibly conceive is not automatically wrong, because only same-sex coupling is wrong. And same-sex coupling is wrong because it cannot result in children. Etc.
We've acknowledged redundancies that are used to emphasize important meanings.
Er, no. I didn't "acknowledge" a redundancy that emphasizes an "important" meaning, I used very specific language to avoid the semantic red herring that you continue to bring up.
All couples who are incapable of conceiving a child are equal, in terms of the children that they conceive. They may "look" different, but no reasoned argument has been presented that looks are sufficient to deny rights to some of those equal couples and grant them to others.
As I said, there are no meaningful differences between same-sex couples and mixed-sex infertile couples.
ReplyDeleteSure, if to you homosexuality is a handicap. Or is the difference between a disability and a sexual orientation not meaningful to you?
A disability vs laziness orientation is a meaningful distinction to the Social Security office. One side is trying but cant, the other won't even try.
Meaningful or not?
Math, unlike language, is remarkably consistent.
ReplyDeleteOnly vacuously true. The function of creating children is not addition or summation. Thus any point you build on that premise is going to be meaningless, even if it is true.
Chairm's point is valid, especially in the math analogy. It is not meaningful to express a same-sex couple as infertile, it does not compute.
One is "zero" for an answer, the other is simply zero .. as in void of an expressible answer. It is vacuously true.
no reasoned argument has been presented that looks are sufficient to deny rights to some of those equal couples and grant them to others.
ReplyDeleteFalse premise, false conclusion. You are the only one constraining the discussion beyond reality. You are the one admittedly "us[ing] very specific language to avoid" an argument you find inconvenient to address. You are the one wishing people not employ their own experience and knowledge just make sure we are constrained "based on the sentence I just quoted".
Your own blinders are your own issue. You realize that, don't you?
On Lawn:
ReplyDeleteSure, if to you homosexuality is a handicap. Or is the difference between a disability and a sexual orientation not meaningful to you?
A disability vs laziness orientation is a meaningful distinction to the Social Security office. One side is trying but cant, the other won't even try.
This only makes sense if you view it as a moral imperative for men to impregnate women, or for women to get pregnant and bear children. Is that your view?
When I suggested a good tag line for a commercial could be,"Vote no on Proposition 8. Gay men should marry women," op-ed called it a straw man. But it's not a straw man when I'm talking with you, is it? You compare gay people who enter into same-sex relationships with lazy people who choose not to work. The clear implication is that gay men ought to marry women, instead of choosing to deprive the world of their babymaking potential. (Just as lazy people ought to work, so they don't deprive the world of their productivity.)
Is that an accurate description of your views?
While you compare congenital or other infertility to a birth defect, it's not clear how you view a man who chooses, intentionally, to mate with a woman who lacks a uterus. He may be fertile himself, and as such, he seems to be in a position that is exactly the same as a man who chooses to mate with a man who lacks a uterus. Even though the woman may have a birth defect, in both cases, at least one man is choosing, through his actions, to deprive the world of his sperm and its babymaking capabilities.
This only makes sense if you view it as a moral imperative for men to impregnate women, or for women to get pregnant and bear children. Is that your view?
ReplyDeleteNice try, but your ability to over-constrain is not my problem. It is your's, remember?
You said there is no meaningful difference between gays and the disabled. That means either you think disability and not even trying are the same, or the difference is meaningless.
"Vote no on Proposition 8. Gay men should marry women,"
You can choose a ready guide in some celestial voice.
If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.
You can choose from phantom fears and kindness that can kill
I will choose a path that's clear
I will choose free will.
--Rush
You compare gay people who enter into same-sex relationships with lazy people who choose not to work.
Sure, wasn't it you that said, "Whether you want to call them "infertile" or "nonfertile" or "asdflkjdgsfl;kj," they all conceive the same number of children: zero. Zero equals zero."
Lets substitute now with lazy people....
-- Whether you want to call them "disabled" or "lazy" or "asdflkjdgsfl;kj," they all do the same amount of work: zero. Zero equals zero.--
Your outcome based reasoning is very shoddy. And it is up to you to make a meaningful difference.
I'll wait patiently, but you are the one arguing that the summation means they are the same. Go ahead, its your own corner and your own paint. I only provided the brush.
While you compare congenital or other infertility to a birth defect
You are over-constraining again. I didn't compare, I classified infertility as a disability.
I always chuckle with little minds like yours. It is always, sooner or later, your lack of understanding which is the issue. It is your platform, your status. But it is also your embarrassment.
it's not clear how you view a man who chooses, intentionally, to mate with a woman who lacks a uterus
I'd rather look at it from the woman's standpoint. Should her disability be a disqualification for marriage?
You tell me.
he seems to be in a position that is exactly the same as a man who chooses to mate with a man who lacks a uterus
Or a rock, or a garbage disposal. Seriously, if you want to play in wonderland where "mate" and two men are involved, then any absurdity is just as valid.
I assume you know what the word "mate" means?
I'm still amused by what you present as "reasonable".
Phil: Not if we're willing to be logical and consistent.
ReplyDeleteIf you're willing, then by all means start.
I suspect that you hold the belief...
You are having enough trouble with what actually is being said without "suspecting" more to deal with.
Very few marriage equality opponents are willing to admit this, however, because it makes them sound so crass.
Or because they don't see people simply as their genitalia as you do.
I just don't think it's my place (or yours) to dictate the positions that a couple takes when they're being intimate.
Argue with your straw man elsewhere. If you had a legitimate argument to make you wouldn't be wasting your time on all these illegitimate ones.
I may be able to, if you define consummation.
Can't work a dictionary yet?
Phil: When it comes to sexual attraction, we should defer to the views of the person involved.
ReplyDeleteUnless of course they are just assuming their attraction. That's what you meant, right?
In the case of my hypothetical example, I actually am good friends with a man...
When you figure out that dictionary thing, look up the word hypothetical.
You might find the example "absurd,"...
What I find absurd is your theory of "assumed" attraction. I have given plenty of examples that show exactly how absurd that theory is. You have not refuted any of them. Instead, you are now just repeating your theory. Repeating something absurd doesn't make it less so.
Have you presented a concept of attraction that is more observable?
Yes. Read back if you are having trouble remembering.
The question I was answering when I said "Yes, it can be," was your question about whether a man is lying when he tells his wife he's not attracted to another woman.
False. The question you were answering was: "Is it 'lying' if a husband does not tell his wife...?"
If you're going to falsify the record, you should have at least hidden behind one of your weasel phrases.
Op-ed, truly infertile couples exist.
Not an answer. For your benefit, I will repeat both questions, neither of which you have answered:
1) How can all man-woman couples with a completely infertile member in fact know that is the case and not just apparently the case?
2) How does the government, who is issuing the license, know?
Those are easy questions to answer if appearance is as meaningless as you wish to pretend.
Phil: The presence of exactly one more ..., and the absence of exactly one... is the only difference.
ReplyDeleteAh yes, back to your people-are-just-genitals point. You're the only one spouting that nonsense.
...the way that a couple "looks" is the meaningful difference...
That's still a straw man, Phil. Repeating a fallacy doesn't make it rational, it just repeats a fallacy.
If a soccer mom meets all of the requirements to be a police officer,...
What if she doesn't? Training isn't a "meaningful" difference. There are untrained people every day who need to get through traffic. You can't just pretend these people don't exist just because their "orientation" prevents them from training! Admit it, you think soccer moms are "icky" and "wrong." You want soccer moms to be second class citizens because they don't get the same rights that police do!
That's not quite accurate. If, for example, both men in a couple are capable of producing viable sperm...
That would be yet another difference.
...the physical makeup of _one_ of the men.
Really? Which one? There's another difference. I thought you said there weren't any. Now you're coming up with them on your own.
"The physical makeup" is the same? The woman's "physical makeup" is a handicap. Which of your males' "physical makeup" is a handicap?
But both couples contain one male who chose to enter into a relationship with a person who lacks functioning ovaries.
No, one of the couples has two of them. For someone who said there were no differences, you're sure good at finding them.
...but hardly relevant, unless you're making the claim that gay men have a moral obligation to marry and impregnate women.
How is it relevant if you are arguing that? Now you're just spinning out of control.
Which, to be honest, some people do argue.
Citation...? (Your straw man doesn't count.)
But you can just as easily argue that, logically, a fertile straight man is morally obligated to find a fertile woman.
You can? Go ahead. I'd love to see you argue "logically."
It takes a lot of rhetorical wrangling to draw a distinction between one class of men who choose to marry a partner who is incapable of conception and another class of men who choose to marry a partner who is incapable of conception.
Actually it took a lot of rhetorical wrangling to try and shoe horn that self referential question into the discussion.
It can't take much rhetorical wrangling to draw a distinction between a man and a post-hysterectomy woman. You managed to come up with several despite trying hard not to.
Tell me, if I cut two legs off a cat, would you be able to tell it apart from a human without "much rhetorical wrangling?" After all, they're both just two-legged animals.
Would you like me to link you to some such studies?
Yes. Please point me to a study that has found a "physiological or biological" way to definitively observe someone's "orientation." Are these "physiological or biological" differences as pronounced as, say, those between a man and a post-hysterectomy woman?
Phil: I did not claim that all persons are only assuming they are attracted to the gender they are attracted to.
ReplyDeleteActually, you did.
"Since there is no way to compare your feelings of attraction to the feelings that other people feel, we all make assumptions..." [emphasis mine]
Regardless, if you think anyone is just assuming then nobody's self assessment can be trusted unless you can tell us how to differentiate between who is and who is not just "assuming."
You are arguing against a straw man...
Not if you actually did say it.
Actually, no. I claimed that I was d*mn certain of their orientations without knowing anything about their sexual activities.
No, you didn't. What you said was "Even though he has never publicly acknowledged his homosexuality, I am d**n sure he's gay."
Over and over again, in fact:
"Unfortunately, I can no longer cite Clay Aiken as my celebrity example of a man we all know d**n well is gay even though he hasn't said so."
"So how about Olympic figure skater Johnny Weir? He has never publicly acknowledged that he's gay."
Look, I am perfectly willing to make the statement that Clay Aiken and Johnny Weir are gay. Do you disagree?
Whether or not I agree is irrelevant. What is relevant is that you are so "perfectly willing to make the statement" about "orientation" after working so hard to make "orientation" unobservable.
Phil, in your comments you objected to what you thought is circular reasoning, right?
ReplyDeleteWell, here is your clarification of the intended point of your comparison.
Phil: "All couples who are incapable of conceiving children are the same, in terms of their ability to conceive children."
That's circular. It is also pretty useless in this discussion.
Please clarify your point.
* * *
Also, you have not responded to the observation that your own viewpoint relies on appearances.
You assume that people who'd show-up for a license to SSM are homosexually orientated. Mutability is irrelevant to eligiblity.
* * *
I see that you have further narrowed your search for the rarest of apparent exceptions. As you've done so, the more differences you've brushed aside and the more meaningful differences you've overlooked.
* * *
I'll invite you, again, to cut away the underbrush and just plainly state the general rule you would propose regarding homosexuality and eligibility for a license to SSM.
Cheerio,
Chairm
In the meantime, I'll point out that you have switched from infertility (which you brought into the discussion and then misapplied) to not having "the ability to conceive children".
ReplyDeleteAlso, as previously noted, you have switched from "any difference" to "any meaningful difference".
And, as I think op-ed noted, you have switched from the couple to the individual. To get to that you already switched from the type of relationship to the particular relationship of this and that particular person.
Narrower, and narrower, and narrower.
* * *
Anyway, most infertile couples won't know they are infertile as a couple until they have had lots and lots of sex together. That's a pretty meaningful difference, too.
And, contrary to your assumption, and contrary to you annoyance with this fact, many infertile couples do have the ability to conceive children together. For example, some couples experience multiple miscarriages. All reproductively healthy couples are infertile for part of each month. And so on.
So your thinking would have to include the requirement that the couple engage in premarital childbearing, as well, so as to determine the hard cases of "complete infertility". [See footnote.]
And even that would not work since most infertile married couples already have children. Secondary infertility is more prevalent than primary infertility. So your hunt for the rarest of exception has further narrowed.
As has your comparison.
* * *
Footnote: Infertility is never complete, by the way. So you are probably restricting yourself to some form of individualized sterility.
Phill, you have now tried to pin-point the couple in which the woman has undergone the loss of her uterus due to a hysterectomy.
ReplyDeleteRelatively very few hysterectomies are performed on childless unmarried women of childbearing age. And of those most do not entail the removal all ovaries. Plus there is the option to save the ovaries, anyway, enabling the couple to conceive children.
And, perhaps to your annoyance, the dire circumstances in which childless unmarried women undergo hysterectomies really do comprise a very meaningful difference. You oought to acknowledge that, I think.
The lack of a uterus means that your new comparison would exclude the all-female scenario which could have one or more uteruses.
ReplyDeleteOf course, such a uterus rich scenario would remain as nonfertile as the all-male scenario. It is not really the uterus -- present or absent -- that provides the basis of your comparison, afterall.
In your efforts to blind yourself to "any difference", indeed even to "any meaningful difference", you have missed a great deal that infertile couples experience and suffer. That, I think, makes your comparison crude and horriblely cruel.
But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you are just trying to find a close analogy that might transform an apparent exception into a general rule of some sort. I have twice askd you to state that general rule so we might skip past your circular thinking on infertility, remember.
Anyway, by necessity your hunt for the rarest of apparent exceptions has been narrowed and narrowed and narrowed.
Now you have switched from the infertile condition to a childless outcome. And not just a childless outcome due to infertility, but such an outcome that is foreseeable with absolute certainty before marriage.
I think that is what you meant by your proor choice of words, "complete infertility".
And that means sterility of at least one individual in the pre-marital couple. Still the man and the woman share each other's reproductive health. That's the meaning of infertile couple and I think that is worth retaining in your proposed comparison.
In effect, you are trying to find an example of a man-woman couple which closely analogous to the scenario that lacks one or the other sex. I don't think that coupledom is relevant to the same-sex side of your comparison. You haven't explained how it would be relevant so your hunt narrows to the individual. As I said the lone individual is just as nonfertile as a same-sex twosome or moresome.
This sterility you seek to pin-point as closely analogous with the lack of the other sex must be absolute and obviously so before the sterile woman marries the man; or before the sterile man marries the woman.
Indeed, the license office must be absolutely certain. And that means objective criteria.
The authorities cannot rely on appearances, you said.
This must rule out all forms of potentially reversible sterility. And it must require government intrusion into private medical matters. Each individual must be scrutinized intensely. Obviously, your search would envisage a totalitarian system for screening out the rarest of apparent exceptions. On that basis alone it does not pass the plausibility test.
ReplyDeleteThe search is for:
The childless, unmarried, irreversibly sterile individual. Such a person is highly likely to have a physical disability due to a birth defect (not a choice), a severe illness or disease (not a choice), or medically necessary treatment (not a choice). Prospects for marriage might well be very low and your search is to reduce those prospects to nill.
However, in the realworld, such a person is eligible to marry and can do so without overturning the core meaning of the social institution of marriage. Your ever narrowing hunt is a hunt for an exception that is apparent but not actual.
On Lawn has a strong point about how society treats disabilities.
Also, when a man and woman unite, they do not overturn the core meaning of marriage. That is yet another very meaningful difference.
That core meaning is not "heterosexuality" and is not "straight identity" and it is not "the ability to conceive children".
The core meaning is about a type of relationship, one which is public and which is sexual. The license is a contract to form this type of relationship; but once consummated, the relationship is not a contract in the normal sense of the law; and the people who form this conjugal type of relationship enter a foundational social institution, rather than a merely private arrangement. So the personal motivations to marry are not the equivalent of the societal significance of the marriage institution.
Whether or not homosexuality is mutable is irrelevant to the opposite-sexed sexual basis of marriage.
Phil: Not if we're willing to be logical and consistent. I suspect that you hold the belief that all nonprocreative sex is illicit, and that's not a belief that most Americans share. Many Americans are icked out by the idea of gay sex, it's true, but they have no problem with the idea of, say, heterosexual oral sex.
ReplyDeleteI don't know where you're living, but where I live, actually many heterosexuals are indeed "icked out" even with heterosexual oral sex; my parents and probably most in their generation certainly were.
But that really is irrelevant. Even if what you say were true for most heterosexuals, most of them do not believe that non-creative forms of "sex" are equal to the one type which can produce children. If you want to put the issue before the public, and you want to frame the issue in that way, be my guest, and see which side wins then.
But I suspect you would not want the issue framed that way, which is why you distort it and erect a straw man. Where did I say I regarded nonprocreative sex as "illicit". Where did I say I wanted to ban it? Nowhere. If the issue goes before the public in a referendum, it will be on the question of whether all forms of nonprocreative sex are to be considered "equal" to the one which produces children. Not that your side will not try to distort the issue to make it sound like it's about banning.
To most heterosexuals who are not "icked out" by it, nonprocreative sex is seen as a side-benefit to marriage, not equal to conjugal sex. Hey, Bill Clinton didn't even think it was "sex".
The argument that infertile mixed-sex couples look like fertile heterosexual couples boils the anti-marriage-equality argument down to what it really is: penises and vaginas. A lesbian is not different in any meaningful way, when it comes to the "nature" or "purpose" of marriage, from a man who is incapable of fertilizing an egg, except that she has a vagina.
ReplyDeleteNo, as for one thing, most lesbians are capable of reproduction (which, I take it, is not thus "meaningful"). But also, a lesbian (or gay male) couple calling themselves "married" visibly and bluntly breaks any connection between marriage and procreation for the whole culture in a way that an infertile heterosexual couple never could. Infertility in a marriage is normally none of the public's business, but when it's obvious to all, it has the pronounced cultural effect of saying not only that marriage has nothing to do with procreation, but that all forms of "sex" are "equal" (or otherwise that sex is totally irrelevant to marriage as well).
Yes, I'm talking about the cultural effect here, not just the strictly legalistic, which is what you keep trying to reduce it to. Is it your position that arguments based on cultural effect are irrelevant, even to an institution whose opposite-sex nature way predates the law of any country?
I think that _commitment_ is probably more important to marriage than sexual contact, but I also think that sexual intimacy is an important part of it.
A totally predictable answer, and a wish-washy one as well ("It is but it isn't"). How far would you be willing to extend marriage beyond the core of sexual intimacy? If you have any limits, may I then argue that those limits make no sense because you do not want to prohibit marriage between two who've been maimed and thus cannot perform sex?
I just don't think it's my place (or yours) to dictate the positions that a couple takes when they're being intimate.
Again, you erect the straw man that we are talking about "dictating" anything about what goes on in private. Where have any of us done this, Phil? If you continue to erect this straw man, I'm going to continue to ask you to show where we have done this until I get an answer.
For example, if a young marine had his penis blown off (or her vagina disfigured) by a land mine while serving in Iraq, I would never say to them, "You can never get married, because you're not capable of vaginal sex." If they can find a person who loves them and is willing to commit to them, the way that they are intimate is much better left up to the couple than to me, you, or the government.
ReplyDeleteThese are special exceptions, Phil. On the grounds that had it not been for an unfortunate fate, they would have been able to have sex and reproduce.
What unfortunate fate is involved with same-sex couples? Being male? Being female? Being homosexual? Being unable to reproduce? Are we trying to make up for nature's failure to make same-sex sex procreative? Is same-sex marriage going to be seen as a "special exception"? Or part of the norm? This question really is relevant, and your side needs to be honest about it when putting this issue before the public.
Many of the same SSM opponents have no problem exiling gay people to perpetual bachelorhood because in their view, gay people are doing something "wrong." Perhaps that's animus?
But we're not "exiling gay people to perpetual bachelorhood".
We should treat gay and lesbian individuals equally. Saying that same-sex couples are totally equal, however, necessarily implies also saying that nonprocreative sex must be treated as "equal" to procreative sex. What is the Constitutional basis for holding that all forms of sexual contact must be regarded as equal? Like it or not, nonprocreative sex is qualitatively different from procreative sex, even when the latter does not produce children, merely by the fact that it is the type that does. Hence there is a qualitative difference between a same-sex and opposite-sex union.
I may be able to, if you define consummation.
Oh, I can easily. Consummation is the act of the one form of sex that produces children, as I see it. What do you hold consummation to be? Any form of sex at all? How do we determine that? Or is it to be defined as just the type of sex that a particular person likes best? Or are we to just get rid of the whole concept of consummation altogether, and not allow non-consummation as a grounds for annulment? Your side needs to work this out.
I do not consider "looks" to be a meaningful distinction.
ReplyDeletePhil, the difference between genders goes way beyond looks. It is a meaningful distinction which is generally obvious to all, but the distinction does go beyond what we can see publicly. But the fact that we can see it publicly makes it have cultural implications way beyond the mere mechanistic or legalistic ones you would like us to narrow it down to.
You would like us to say: "Either we allow same-sex marriage and say that all unions are equal regardless of what sex they perform, or we must prohibit marriage between all infertile couples". Is that your position?
Now, where would you draw the line on how infertile a couple must be to be denied a marriage license? Infertile after years of marriage and kids? Infertile now but likely reversible? Infertile now but possibly reversible with future medical advances? Only post-hysterectomy? Only for those whose genitals were destroyed?
Please state specifically which heterosexual couples you think we should ban from marriage (or require to be divorced) to satisfy your view of consistency here. Not asking what you think about it, but what you think we should think about it to be consistent in your view, because you've been arguing all over the place with it, from requiring divorce for elderly couples to just prohibiting marriage for "land mine" situations.
On Lawn:
ReplyDeleteYou said there is no meaningful difference between gays and the disabled.
No, I analogized a gay person with a disabled person, because in both instances, it is not the individual's fault if they cannot impregnate a woman (or be impregnated by a man.) There is no meaningful difference between a man without a uterus and a woman without a uterus, except for the meaning that they personally ascribe to their gender. It is not the place of third parties, or the state, to assign special significance to an individual's gender. (Currently, most states arbitrarily permit women without uteruses to marry men and prevent men without uteruses from marrying men.)
You may be born with a disability, just as you may be born a man or a woman.
op-ed:
Actually, you did.
I said "We all make assumptions about whether we are like or unlike our peers." That is a true statement. Do you disagree with that true statement, op-ed? It is not the same as saying that we are all only assuming that we are attracted to the person we're attracted to.
You denied the existence of even one person who could possibly be assuming an attraction. That's an extraordinarily broad claim, and it's not much of a stretch to posit that one, or even a few, such persons exist. Your position is so extreme (no such person can exist) that it really makes no sense to argue it, yet you persist.
unless you can tell us how to differentiate between who is and who is not just "assuming."
Logic does not require me to personally provide the mechanism to differentiate the internal workings of all human beings in order to posit that a person can possibly make an assumption. Sometimes the real world is complicated, op-ed. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
You are engaging in the fallacy of "Loki's Wager."
Phil:
Actually, no. I claimed that I was d*mn certain of their orientations without knowing anything about their sexual activities.
op-ed:
No, you didn't. What you said was "Even though he has never publicly acknowledged his homosexuality, I am d**n sure he's gay."
Right, so where did I claim to know anything of either person's sexual activities?
-- Whether you want to call them "disabled" or "lazy" or "asdflkjdgsfl;kj," they all do the same amount of work: zero. Zero equals zero.--
Lazy people ought to work. Are you saying that fertile people ought to reproduce? Otherwise, your statements about lazy people are just non sequiturs.
What is relevant is that you are so "perfectly willing to make the statement" about "orientation" after working so hard to make "orientation" unobservable.
ReplyDeleteIf orientation is difficult to observe, it's not because of me. If the real world is complicated and I point that out, I haven't "made" something happen; I'm just pointing out reality.
One point of the testimony the original post cited was to establishm basically, that homosexuals exist. While noting the difficulties in identifying people of particular sexual orientations, I cited two real-world examples: Clay Aiken and Johnny Weir.
The fact that Johnny Weir is gay, and that this can be deduced with no knowledge of his sexual activities or statements from him, is a fun example that proves false the notion that there are no homosexuals, or that homosexuality is based on behavior and not orientation.
You could argue this point by claiming that either a) Johnny Weir is straight or b) We cannot or do not actually know Johnny's orientation.
If you think I'm wrong, say so. If you don't think my statement is wrong, what are you arguing against?
Chairm:
In the meantime, I'll point out that you have switched from infertility (which you brought into the discussion and then misapplied) to not having "the ability to conceive children".
Because infertile people can conceive children. Thank you for that wisdom, Chairm. Obviously, the reason I brought up "completely infertile" couples is because I wanted to talk about couples who can conceive children.
Thank God you are here to bring up important points like that. Otherwise, some casual reader might have thought that a "completely infertile" couple is one that cannot conceive a child.
Phil: No, I analogized a gay person with a disabled person, because in both instances, it is not the individual's fault if they cannot impregnate a woman (or be impregnated by a man.)
ReplyDeleteBut your analogy fails because as has been shown in countless occasions, in the first instance they can.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteMe: >> You said there is no meaningful difference between gays and the disabled.
ReplyDeletePhil: > No, I analogized a gay person with a disabled person [...]
Survey says?
* My point is that there is no meaningful difference between a same-sex couple and an infertile (mixed-sex) couple.
* A lesbian is not different in any meaningful way, when it comes to the "nature" or "purpose" of marriage, from a man who is incapable of fertilizing an egg, except that she has a vagina.
* The presence of exactly one more penis or vagina, and the absence of exactly one penis or vagina is the only difference. That difference is not meaningful.
That was just the first three I came across in the first 3/4 of this thread.
So, care to try that again? This time, do try to be _honest_ with the readership, and most importantly yourself.
[...] because in both instances [...]
Remember the black and white swan instance above? You said...
* Olson wasn't saying that all swans are white, and his argument doesn't fall apart if a single black swan exists.
It seems you understand the nature of contradiction to a degree. So you probably already understand that no amount of concurring evidence can prove something that isn't true.
You can say there are no even numbers divisible by three. And you can point to an infinite number of even numbers that perfectly match that premise.
However, if there exists a contradiction then the premise is no longer valid. Consider the number 6 which is even, it contradicts the absolute assumption made about all even numbers.
So to is your hastily renamed (with a word I'm sure you pulled out of thin air) "analogized" effort a failure. For no matter how many similarities there are it cannot prove they are the same, or even meaningfully the same. When we point out contradictions (evidence where they are not the same) you mistakenly feel that your one corroborating evidence is enough. It is the exact same as trying to prove no even number is divisible by three, having someone mention the number 6 in contradiction, and then you simply re-iterate that it is true for the number 4, it must be true!
So, in short, not even an infinite number of "in both instances" similarities will ever outweigh the contradictions we pointed out.
Phil, your many errors have been noted in this discussion.
ReplyDeleteYour latest comment caps the set.
Phil said: "Obviously, the reason I brought up 'completely infertile' couples is because I wanted to talk about couples who can conceive children."
As I noted earlier, completely infertile couples can conceive children together. So if you wanted to talk about something else, you should have said that instead.
Phil said: "Thank God you are here to bring up important points like that. Otherwise, some casual reader might have thought that a 'completely infertile' couple is one that cannot conceive a child."
You are that casual reader, Phil.
You mock yourself. And concede a great deal more.
There is a moral duty to allow unfettered discussion. If my post is worthy of deletion, then it would be obvious to anyone reading this blog. Censoring the discussion discredits this blog and your arguments.
ReplyDeleteHere was my comment to you, Phil:
Paul, people have a right to marry and procreate with their spouse, whether they are able to or not. But people should not be allowed to marry and procreate with someone of the same sex. Even a woman with no ovaries retains the right to marry and procreate, and only with a man.
Ax has been through this with me, he has had to admit that he indeed demands the right to use whatever technology might be invented to attempt to procreate with another man. So before you waste any time, either admit that you too demand to be allowed to use artificial gametes to procreate with a man, or admit that I'm right, and Civil Unions without procreation rights are a better solution.
Phil: in both instances, it is not the individual's fault if they cannot impregnate a woman (or be impregnated by a man.)
ReplyDeleteAs RK pointed out, you really gaffed on that one. You set up a similarity but instead pointed out another difference. It really means something that the one shot you get to point out a corroborating similarity, you strike yet another meaningful difference.
There is no meaningful difference between a man without a uterus and a woman without a uterus, except for the meaning that they personally ascribe to their gender.
Oh my! Add this to the collection above. "No" you said. And then couldn't go another paragraph without directly saying it again...
Phil, you really keep the place lively, I have to appreciate your flair for entertainment.
Two things more wrong with that statement...
1) Science is a greater entity then they themselves ascribing attributes to a gender.
2) A man without a uterus is expected, a woman without is disabled.
I don't think homosexuality is a handicap, but you certainly seem to be making it analogous with one. Even to comparing a healthy trait to a lack of physical wholeness -- as no meaningful difference.
(Currently, most states arbitrarily permit women without uteruses to marry men and prevent men without uteruses from marrying men.)
Arbitrary. You really call that difference arbitrary. You need to read some biology and anatomy textbooks, or ask someone you trust about different organs that are considered traits of different genders.
I think you'll find it is far less arbitrary then you think.
Lazy people ought to work.
Unless of course they have grown beyond those expectations of themselves... :)
Are you saying that fertile people ought to reproduce?
Why are you guessing (wrongly) about what I'm saying when what I have said is so available?
Perhaps he who checks behind the door, hid there once before. Perhaps you expect others in this thread to try to re-write or post-hoc re-define what they wrote like you did? Well, rest assured, you are the only one who tried that from what I can tell so far.
Otherwise, your statements about lazy people are just non sequiturs.
Which statement about lazy people? Which one specifically? I've pointed out that lazy people are meaningfully different then disabled people. Is that a non-sequitor? I've pointed out that lazy people are recognized as ineligible for the same entitlements that others get who are just as non-productive. Is that a non-sequitor?
What statement specifically about lazy people was a non-sequitor?
Or would you rather have said, that the statements about people who are not productive though capable are similar to homosexuals who are not re-productive though capable are not analogous?
Because those are two different accusations.
Well, don't blame me. I'm not the one who said homosexuality is analogous (or even more frequently said there is no meaningful difference) to a disability either.
It is your analogy, and either it works or it doesn't. You seem to be shooting your own foot here, and I'll just watch you keep doing it. You can't have it both ways... either they can but won't (analogous to a lazy person), or they can't (analogous to a disabled person). You tell me.
And this time do be honest. We have the record of the conversation so far.
On Lawn:
ReplyDeleteSo, care to try that again? This time, do try to be _honest_ with the readership, and most importantly yourself.
If you want me to reiterate that there is no meaningful difference between a man with no uterus and a woman with no uterus, I'll be happy to.
That is not the same as a broad statement that there is no meaningful difference between gays and "the disabled."
Phil, on 2/10:
ReplyDeleteI try to use overly-specific terms like "a completely infertile mixed-sex couple" to mean mixed-sex couples who cannot possibly conceive children because in the past, whenever I bring up "infertile couples," some well-intentioned person with poor reasoning ability counters with "Infertile couples can still conceive children! It happens all the time!"--as if I were talking about the _word_ infertile, and not the class of mixed-sex couples who cannot conceive children.
Chairm, on 2/11:
As I noted earlier, completely infertile couples can conceive children together. So if you wanted to talk about something else, you should have said that instead.
On Lawn:
ReplyDeleteScience is a greater entity then they themselves ascribing attributes to a gender.
Now we're getting somewhere. What is the meaningful difference between men and women that so many people in this discussion are trying to get at? What answer does "science" provide?
So Phil is maintaining that there is "no meaningful difference between a man with no uterus and a woman with no uterus"?
ReplyDeleteLOL! That's hysterical! (pardon the pun)
So Phil, assuming you're a gay man -- you would have no problem loving a woman who has had a hysterectomy. But an intact woman presents something of a problem for you.... is that it?
Phil: That is a true statement.
ReplyDeleteNot if you are talking about the broadest definition of the term "like everyone else." We know we are all unique and forensic science makes significant use of that fact. If you meant it only in a limited context then it depends on the limited context in which you are applying it. We know, for example, whether we are like the majority in terms of having two eyes, a mouth, and a nose.
The part of your sentence that you conveniently trimmed, conveniently also forgetting the proper use of ellipses, was "Since there is no way to compare your feelings of attraction to the feelings that other people feel, we all make assumptions..." [emphasis mine].
You denied the existence of even one person who could possibly be assuming an attraction.
I denied that you can assume something you know, by definition. Feelings, like happiness, anger, attraction, etc. are something that we know, also by definition, because they do not exist without our actually feeling them.
That's an extraordinarily broad claim,...
Broad or not, it is a logically true claim.
...it's not much of a stretch to posit that one, or even a few, such persons exist.
"Not much of a stretch" is a weasel phrase that means it is a stretch. In this case, it is a stretch of the definition of feelings from being something that we actually experience to being something disembodied that we don't actually feel but rather make assumptions about. That you see such a complete redefinition as "not much of a stretch" is itself very telling.
...it really makes no sense to argue it...
Logic should not need to be argued, I agree. Assigning epithets like "extreme" to a logical conclusion do not make it any less true. It may be "extreme" to note that one never equals two even if it is "not much of a stretch" to posit that there are really big values of one.
Logic does not require me to personally provide the mechanism to differentiate the internal workings of all human beings in order to posit that a person can possibly make an assumption.
No, but if you say a fact my be merely assumed and then want to use somebody's statement as proof of that fact, logic does require you to show why that person's statement is not just an assumption.
Sometimes the real world is complicated, op-ed.
Complexity is no excuse for bad logic (Phil-logic, if you will), Phil. Complexity may be the tool of the sophist, but that does not make sophistry no longer questionable.
Right, so where did I claim to know anything of either person's sexual activities?
Asking what you did not say is no proof of what you did say. You claimed to have said something you did not say.
Asking what you did not say at best argues you could have said something, but that does not prove you did. Actual quotes, such as I provided, prove what you did say.
Lazy people ought to work.
Why? That would require they change their "orientation."
Are you saying that fertile people ought to reproduce?
I'll take wildly baseless non sequiturs for $1000, Alex.
"Fertile" means nothing more than can reproduce.
If orientation is difficult to observe, it's not because of me.
It certainly is if you had to redefine terms like attraction to make it so.
If the real world is complicated and I point that out, I haven't "made" something happen...
No, but using "the real world is complicated" as an excuse for bad thinking is at least an attempt at making something happen.
One point of the testimony the original post cited was to establishm basically, that homosexuals exist.
ReplyDeleteNow we are just going back over old ground. The study was not designed to show that.
I cited two real-world examples: Clay Aiken and Johnny Weir.
Here's some real-world bigfoot footage. Since bigfoot footage exists, so does bigfoot.
More Phil-logic. Claiming that Clay Aiken and Johnny Weir are "homosexuals" and therefore proof that "homosexuals" exist is not proving anything. It is simply begging the question.
If you don't think my statement is wrong, what are you arguing against?
Phil-logic.
Phil: That is not the same as a broad statement that there is no meaningful difference between gays and "the disabled."
ReplyDeleteBut you claim it is the same thing as "a broad statement that there is no meaningful difference between" a same-sex couple and a marriage.
Checkmate.
Phil, unfortunately for you, the term "a completely infertile mix-sex couple" is not an "overly-specific" term for "the class of mixed-sex couples who cannot conceive children".
ReplyDeleteYou knew that, too.
"Mixed-sex" adds nothing. It does not push the term to become overly-specific. Likewise "completely". And infertility does not mean what you thought it meant.
You may feel that it is reasonable for you to use words without, you know, relying on the actual meaning of those words. But that's your error, not mine.
Your term is a clumbsy attempt on your part to classify the individual, not the couple, and for classifying by outcome, not condition. So you were not being specific even to your previously stated intention.
And this classification would rely on an outcome that must be predicted with absolute certainty by a totalitarian system which does not exist. This inherent implausibility does not save your use of your own term.
You could have started with being specific but you started at the wrong place anyway. You wanted to compare the same-sex twosome with opposite-sex twosome even though the lack of the other sex is not dependant on the number two. You wanted to make this comparison even though fertility (and thus infertility) is not a variability of the lack of the other sex.
You have been comparing this particular (and definitive) lack of something meaningful with your uninformed view of an actual physical disability of the individual. And, also, at times you have switched to a comparison of homosexuality with that same flawed view of disability.
That comparison inadvertently has revealed a lot about your view of things, but it reveals nothing about marriage nor about sexual orientation.
This exemplifies SSM argumentation.
Now that you've been walked through your ever narrowing search for the rarest of apparent exceptions, you might pause and consider that no one, but for you, has said that "the ability to conceive children" is a requirement for eligibility to marry.
Your hunt is a wild goose chase.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeletePhil: What answer does "science" provide?
ReplyDeleteNow there is a clear admission that you don't know, and want to. That kind of attitude would have saved you a lot of grief and embarrassment ... just saying.
I recommend the Wikipedia as an easily referenced summary of the science.
Sex differences in humans
There you read just how a woman is far more then a uterus, there are many differences which support the function of being a woman -- biologically speaking.
It also mentions that the removal of a uterus doesn't change your sex. Just like taking away one of your arms doesn't mean you are no longer human, it simply makes you disabled in that aspect of your biology inherent to humanity.
Gendering also provides a useful set of differences. Some more meaningful then others, but by all means not to be dismissed by any unbiased observer of the facts. Also note that gender differences are different then sexist roles.
Gender differences in humans.
Those who have been following the conversation know Phil likes to summarize arguments using TV commercials. As he has not yet done so for his own argument, I thought I'd do him a favor.
ReplyDeleteScene 1: A crowded baseball stadium.
The camera zooms in on a middle-aged couple sitting in the crowd.
Middle-aged woman: I'll be right back
Middle-aged man: OK.
MA-woman stands and starts making her way to the aisle.
Scene 2: Aisle in stadium. MA-woman makes her way up the stadium stairs toward the exit.
Scene 3: MA-woman standing in line. Man in line in front of her glances back at her.
Scene 4: Men's Restroom Door. MA-woman is next in line. She pushes through the door.
Scene 5: Inside men's restroom, in front of sinks. MA-woman walks past sink. A man, washing his hands, looks up at her suspiciously. MA-woman looks away.
Scene 6: In front of urinals. All urinals are occupied. Man in front of center urinal steps away. MA-woman steps up to take his place. Camera cuts to shoulder level and above. MA-woman glances to urinal occupant to her left. An overweight man looks back at her. She shifts a little and looks to the urinal occupant to her right to see an elderly woman looking down. The elderly woman catches the MA-woman's movement and looks up. As their eyes meet, the camera zooms in tight on the MA-woman's face. An announcer's voice-over cuts in.
Announcer: Vote no on Proposition 8. Because after your hysterectomy, you're no different than a man.
Fade to black as MA-woman turns to look at the wall in front of her. Words appear on screen:
Brought to you by Phil-logic and the campaign to neuter marriage.
On Lawn:
ReplyDeleteI'd rather look at it from the woman's standpoint. Should her disability be a disqualification for marriage?
You tell me.
No, actually, if a person lacks a uterus, that lack should not be a disqualification for marriage to a person with a penis, or any other genital type.
The gender of that person is irrelevant to me, and should be no business of the state.
If the state is interested in outcomes, of course, then the abstract notion of "maleness" and "femaleness" is also irrelevant.
op-ed:
Or because they don't see people simply as their genitalia as you do.
That is a ridiculous statement. You have been defending a position which is impossible without taking a person's genitals into consideration.
I hold and defend a position regarding legal marriage which does not take genitals into consideration, ever.
You've got nothing without first considering genitals. You are, and have been, reducing people to their genitals for this entire discussion.
op-ed:
When you figure out that dictionary thing, look up the word hypothetical.
Why do you write things like that, op-ed? In this case, your sentence is pointless, because when a person brings up a hypothetical example and then lists a real-world instance, it doesn't mean the example wasn't hypothetical.
But, more generally, you have this tendency to type bitchy little comments that are not relevant to the larger discussion. It makes you come across as petty and small-minded. Is that your goal? Or just an unfortunate side-effect of your snide writing style?
Chairm:
ReplyDeleteLikewise "completely". And infertility does not mean what you thought it meant.
Definitions of "infertile:"
Incapable of producing offspring
- American Heritage Stedman's Medical Dictionary
Not capable of reproducing.
- American Heritage Science Dictionary
incapable of reproducing; "an infertile couple"
- The Free Dictionary
op-ed:
ReplyDeleteBrought to you by Phil-logic and the campaign to neuter marriage.
Actually, I'd use the phrase that a woman is equal to a man (and vice versa.)
But if we're talking about the law, then we're talking about what the state either permits people to do or bans people from doing.
So, if you're mocking me by suggesting that I believe middle-aged woman should have the right to use a men's room? Go for it. Mock away. I absolutely support the right of a middle-aged woman (or any woman, or any man) to use a men's room.
The naturally corollary to the commercial you presented would feature a woman running to the ladies' room, only to find that a line stretches around the block. She runs to the men's room, where a representative of the government (say, a cop) bars her from entering.
"Wet yourself. Because gender norms should be enforced by the state." --Paid for by op-ed and the supporters of Proposition 8
On Lawn:
ReplyDeleteI recommend the Wikipedia as an easily referenced summary of the science.
While you linked to another web site which lists sex differences in humans, you did not actually list or cite a single one as being a meaningful difference between men and women.
I get that women's bodies tend to have a higher percentage of body fat. Great. Is that it? Is that your example of a meaningful difference?
You're defending the belief that every marriage requires exactly one man and one woman. In order to logically defend that belief, there must be some quality that men have that women don't, and vice versa.
As Chairm has helpfully pointed out:
no one, but for you [Phil], has said that "the ability to conceive children" is a requirement for eligibility to marry.
So there must be something else that women have that men don't. What is it? I defy you to name just one quality that women have that is crucial to marriage. (Or one quality that men have that is crucial to marriage.)
What answer does science provide?
Phil, who, in your opinion, should not be married, and why should they not be married? Please answer the latter without contradicting your reasoning as to why two of the same gender should be married.
ReplyDeleteAny advocate of changing the historical understanding of marriage has to do at least as much.
I defy you to name just one quality that women have that is crucial to marriage. (Or one quality that men have that is crucial to marriage.)
ReplyDeleteA woman can be a mother, even if by adoption. A woman can be a grandmother, even if a step-grandmother, if she married in later years.
Similarly, a man can be a father, even if by adoption. A man can be a grandfather, even ii a step-grandfather, if he married in later years.
A marriage may not involve children. But if it does, both a mother and a father are crucial to the marriage. One father and one mother, that is.
After all, we don't call single parents "married" to themselves, do we?
R.K.
ReplyDeleteYes and only a man can be a husband & that requires a wife, And only a woman can be a wife and that requires a husband.
The point of gender roles in marriage is not some laundry list of scientificaly provable (although they are) charachteristics... But rather culture shaping values that form & maintain families in the main.
People need clear standards thay can realte with.
Phil Thibedeaux (asks)
ReplyDeleteQ.You're defending the belief that every marriage requires exactly one man and one woman. In order to logically defend that belief, there must be some quality that men have that women don't, and vice versa.
If you need research then (I suppose) we can scratch the surface.
http://www.faculty.virginia.edu/sexdifferences/
More evidence of differences between the sexes comes from the importance of bringing up children in a family with both a female and male presence, explains Rhoads. The dramatic increase in fatherless families in recent times has led to a multitude of problems. Daughters, and even more so sons, are at risk when the father figure is absent. Problems range from an increase in criminal behavior to substance abuse and psychological problems.
"For women, marriage and bearing children is also vitally important, Rhoads contends. He cited testimony from some women who achieved success in professional life, but who expressed their bitterness at not having children. By contrast, childlessness did not have the same negative effect on high-achieving men."
"Caring for young children, especially if it is combined with an outside job, is a very demanding and tiring task for women. Yet, Rhoads cites a number of studies showing that motherhood and nurturing are a great source of happiness for women. By contrast, men are much less interested in caring for children. Attempts in Sweden, for example, to get men to make use of their legally entitled paternity leave have met with very limited success."
Phil: The gender of that person is irrelevant to me...
ReplyDeleteSee Marty's question, earlier.
That is a ridiculous statement.
It is yours, nonetheless.
You have been defending a position which is impossible without taking a person's genitals into consideration.
Obviously false, since you're the one that brought the subject up. If my position required it, I would have had to bring it up.
You know, you should really check the comment trail before you spout.
I hold and defend a position regarding legal marriage which does not take genitals into consideration, ever.
Your position regarding "legal marriage" does not take anything into consideration. What's funny is you see that as a selling point.
Why do you write things like that, op-ed?
To show why your self-contradicted point needs no further response from me.
But if we're talking about the law, then we're talking about what the state either permits people to do or bans people from doing.
False. If the state does not recognize you as a police officer does that mean you are banned from being a police officer, or simply that you are not one?
Actually, I'd use the phrase that a woman is equal to a man...
Actually, the phrase you did use was "no meaningful difference," as in "There is no meaningful difference between a man without a uterus and a woman without a uterus..." You are now trying to shift to the term "equal" to try and inject yet another amphibology into the debate.
So, if you're mocking me by suggesting that I believe middle-aged woman should have the right to use a men's room?
Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit, is it Phil? (And that's saying something because we've already established your skills at logic.) I'm mocking you on the "no meaningful difference" point, on which your entire argument for neutering marriage rests.
Because gender norms should be enforced by the state.
"Gender norms?" You really do need to figure that dictionary thing out.
Phil, when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging. You started by trying to tell women facing the trauma of a hysterectomy that the operation will leave them no different than a man. Now you're saying we should get rid of separate facilities for men and women altogether.
Here's your new commercial summary:
Scene 1: Door of a woman's locker room. Door bursts open. Woman comes running out screaming. She runs into a police officer standing outside.
Woman: There's a man in there!
A man, unkempt and balding opens the door to wink at the police officer.
Cop: nodding approvinglyYou bet!
Camera zooms in on woman's horrified face.
Announcer: Neuter marriage, because then we'll let men in your locker rooms. It's Phil-logical.
Phil, I'm betting you just peeled off the last of any defenders you may have had.
Phil,
ReplyDeleteIn addition to all the other questions you've left unanswered, don't forget you've left this whopper contradiction unexplained. Did you forget or are you trying to pretend it away?
you did not actually list or cite a single one [...] Is that your example of a meaningful difference?
ReplyDeleteFirst you said I didn't cite a single one, then you say I gave an example of a meaningful difference.
So blatantly dishonest.
...there must be some quality that men have that women don't, and vice versa.
The Wikipedia showed many gendered qualities. And many sex differences. Some were unique to men and some unique to women.
I could cite them, but I'm having fun watching you fail in one fallacy of division after another, something evident to anyone who reads the articles and sees how you strain at gnats and swallow camels within them.
No, actually, if a person lacks a uterus, that lack should not be a disqualification for marriage to a person with a penis, or any other genital type.
Exactly right, no one is denied access to marriage. Do you contend otherwise?
But marriage does expect a man and a woman. That is the difference. And it is a meaningful one.
The gender of that person is irrelevant to me, and should be no business of the state.
Is that your platform? Op-Ed is right then.
If the state is interested in outcomes, of course, then the abstract notion of "maleness" and "femaleness" is also irrelevant.
Talk about neutering marriage.
Remember that Phil thought he was using an "overly-specific" term when he referred to the "completely infertile mixed sex couple".
ReplyDeletePressed, he admitted that it was redundant to use "mixed" since infertile couples are necessarily man-woman twosomes.
* * *
Next, he switched to "unable to conceive children".
However, infertility exists where a couple has conceived but goes through great difficulty, in carrying the pregnancy to term. They might succeed in giving birth, sometimes at the cost of the mother's health or even her life. They might go through repeated miscarriages. The high risks and the loss of life occurs due to infertility. This is very meaningful.
Also, this goes to show, again, that human fertility is variable. That stands in sharp contrast with the constant nonfertility of the entire range of the one-sexed scenario. This is the comparison that Phil dodged. He has tried to compare the lack of the other sex with infertililty. His comparison amounts to the assertion that this lack means the same as all that infertility entails.
As we now read, Phil has eventually switched to "incapable of reproducing offspring". And he went to dictionaries to provide the clipped version of all that infertility entails.
ReplyDeleteThat stands in contrast to his opening dodge in which he posed as one not "talking about the _word_ infertile" but more keen to discuss "the class of mixed-sex couples who cannot conceive children".
Anyway, his offered definitions of the word infertile is his latest excuse for using "completely" to qualify the infertility of the couple. As noted, it does not even cover his emphasized example of the post-hysterectomy woman.
And although his comparison is actually dependant upon outcome rather than condition, he has just cited a definition of the infertile condition. The totalitarian system of predicting outcome, with absolute certainty, does not exist.
Furthermore, it says quite a lot for Phil to stretch his comparison of the constancy of nonfertility with the variability of fertility, he has deeply discounted the meaning of (among other things) disfiguring explosions, miscarriages, life-saving surgeries, and the statistical insignificance of the rarest of apparent exceptions.
And, eventually, sex difference.
* * *
Apparent exceptions, please note, might challenge the general rule but are not actual exceptions. And, as I pointed out earlier, Phil's hunt has become narrower and narrow but he has not been dealing with the actual general rule of marriage -- its core meaning.
And yet, supposedly, he has been in search of meaning throughout the discussion.
So, by "completely infertile" Phil meant nonfertility rather than infertility. He did not really mean the couple but the individual. And he did not mean capability but outcome.
ReplyDeletePhil's clipped version of infertility does not help his comparison with the clear meaning of nonfertility. The lack of the other sex is not infertility.
And the differences between man and woman are definitive of infertility and of nonfertility. Oops.
* * *
As made blatantly obvious wherever it is discussed by advocates, the SSM argument about sexual attraction must be based on the meaning of man-woman differences, entailing the differnces in genetillia if nothing else. Sex differnces are explained as being of the utmost importance to same-sex sexual attraction: hence the all-male and the all-female distinctions.
That fact of SSM argumentation makes suspect yet another switch from Phil. He has now switched from nonfertility/infertility to a denial of the meaning of sex differentiation.
Well, actually, that denial, I suppose, lay latent in his falsely equating nonfertility and infertility.
But we could go along with Phil's thinking. To wit: there is no societal significance to sex differentation vis-a-vis marriage. Indeed, there is no sexual significance -- for society must be blind to genitals as well as the opposite-sexed nature of humankind, human fertility, and human community. Societal regard for marriage must be asexualized.
RK asks a good question. I'll restate it this way: what are the essentials of "marriage" that merits the license and the accorded special status such that lines of eligibility may be drawn around its essentials?
What differentiates marriage from nonmarriage -- before a license and a special status (if special status survies) is pinned to it?
One could assess Phil's response by applying the various rules of argumentation he has already invoked while discussing infertility and sex differences.
And since the original blogpost, and discussion, was about sexual orientation and immutability, I suppose Phil might somehow bring his response back onto that topic. Can the pro-SSM view of sexual orientation sustain a denial of the meaning of sex differentiation? And so on.
* * *
I think I'll leave the discussion in the hands of my fellow Opiners and Phil.
Cheerio.
Chairm: And he went to dictionaries to provide the clipped version of all that infertility entails.
ReplyDeleteIt is not a dictionary definition but rather a working one Phil needs to provide. Here are yet more questions Phil has left behind:
1) How can all man-woman couples with a completely infertile member in fact know that is the case and not just apparently the case?
2) How does the government, who is issuing the license, know?
Also in that comment I pointed out the amphibology on which Phil's "no meaningful difference" argument rests:
"...the kind of infertility to which [Phil] refers when discussing a man-woman couple turns out to be an individual characteristic of one of the members, whereas that of the same-sex couple applies only to the pairing, itself."
This amphibology is very significant, as both Chairm and On Lawn have shown, but that significance is moot since Phil cannot answer those first two questions.
Chairm:
ReplyDeleteHe did not really mean the couple but the individual.
This is moot, since I was comparing couples to couples.
As we now read, Phil has eventually switched to "incapable of reproducing offspring". And he went to dictionaries to provide the clipped version of all that infertility entails.
Your post here is ludicrous, Chairm, because you're discussing what I meant when I used a particular phrase. You insisted that my phrase didn't have the meaning I ascribed to it, and I illustrated that it does. The fact that it has other meanings is irrelevant. But go ahead, keep harping on it; I'm sure you will.
You persist in engaging in metadiscussion about what I meant when I used a particular phrase. Wouldn't it have made more sense just to ask me what I meant, if you were confused by a definition?
Same-sex couples can't conceive babies, and some mixed-sex couples also cannot conceive babies. It's not a "circular argument" to say that these couples are the same, in terms of their abilities to conceive babies. It's what's called a truism.
Sex differnces are explained as being of the utmost importance to same-sex sexual attraction: hence the all-male and the all-female distinctions.
How are sex differences "explained" as being of more importance to same-sex sexual attraction than to heterosexual sexual attraction? I assure you, for every gay man you can find who insists that he is only attracted to men, I can find you 6 or 8 straight men who insist that they are only attracted to women.
Are you really saying that sex differences are somehow more a feature of same-sex attraction than heterosexual attraction? Really? Really
Well, actually, that denial, I suppose, lay latent in his falsely equating nonfertility and infertility.
You're persisting in nit-picking the definition of a word I used because you preferred a different definition. (Bear in mind, I did not use the word "infertile" in a way inconsistent with its meaning.) Maybe you'll get lucky and I'll misplace a punctuation mark--then you can rant for days!
I'll restate it this way: what are the essentials of "marriage" that merits the license and the accorded special status such that lines of eligibility may be drawn around its essentials?
Are you talking about civil marriage, religious marriage, or marriage within a particulur subculture?
But we could go along with Phil's thinking.
I agree.
Indeed, there is no sexual significance -- for society must be blind to genitals as well as the opposite-sexed nature of humankind, human fertility, and human community.
Society probably should be blind to gender, yes. That doesn't mean that individuals must be or should be. It may be of extreme importance to you that your marriage partner is a woman. It may also be important to you that she be white, or that she be younger than you, or that she be at least five feet tall, or that she be Christian. None of those attributes are my business. The fact that they are not my business does not mean that you don't have every right to find them important as an individual.
op-ed:
ReplyDeleteHow does the government, who is issuing the license, know?
Why should the government need to know? I haven't taken a position that would require the government to determine which man-woman couples are unable to conceive. My position is that the government should treat consenting adult same-sex couples the same way that it treats consenting adult mixed-sex couples.
Currently, no state in the union gives a $#!+ about whether a mixed-sex couple is capable of conceiving a child, or whether they plan to have children.
This amphibology is very significant
Your amphibology is flawed. If a woman lacks a uterus, her husband is still choosing to partner with a person who lacks a uterus. A same-sex male couple also contains a man who is choosing to partner with a person who lacks a uterus. (It contains two, in fact.)
It is also possible that a same-sex couple contains a member who possesses an "individual characteristic" that prevents him or her from conceiving or causing a child to be conceived.
Can the pro-SSM view of sexual orientation sustain a denial of the meaning of sex differentiation?
ReplyDeleteWhat is the "pro-SSM view of sexual orientation?"
Are you talking about the notion that sexual orientation exists?
Because if sexual orientation doesn't exist, then there is no such thing as "a gay person" or "a gay man," for example. If there is no such thing as a gay man, then that means that Johnny Weir isn't gay.
If that's the case, I invite anyone who disagrees with this notion of sexual orientation to type that sentence: "Johnny Weir is not gay."
As I mentioned, I have no knowledge of any of Weir's sexual activities. For all I know, he could be a virgin. But I'm saying that his sexual orienation is "homosexual," and if you disagree with that statement, feel free to say so.
Phil: > It's not a "circular argument" to say that these couples are the same, in terms of their abilities to conceive babies. It's what's called a truism.
ReplyDeleteActually, as truisms they are not the same. That a same-sex couple cannot conceive a baby, is a truism. That a couple which integrates both genders cannot concieve a baby is an exception to the rule. That exceptions exist may be true, but it isn't obvious -- hence not a truism.
Is it obvious? You dodged that question, but I think we've already established that in R.K.'s post above. It is impossible to tell looking at a couple whether or not they can have a child, but you can if they are a same-sex couple. Its obvious.
Phil: > You persist in engaging in metadiscussion about what I meant when I used a particular phrase.
Your usage was clearly wrong as Chairm pointed out. That you went through such linguistic acrobatics to avoid the obvious, is something I think important to note.
You should meet Chairm's discussion for what it is, instead of mislabeling it "meta-discussion".
Phil: > I haven't taken a position that would require the government to determine which man-woman couples are unable to conceive. My position is that the government should treat consenting adult same-sex couples the same way that it treats consenting adult mixed-sex couples.
I think there is much room for agreement here. However, the same-sex couple is clearly not "marriage", nor does it need to be for each to be treated in similar ways. Your suggested remedy is reckless and overbearing.
Marty: >>> So Phil, assuming you're a gay man -- you would have no problem loving a woman who has had a hysterectomy. But an intact woman presents something of a problem for you.... is that it?
Chairm: >> Sex differnces are explained as being of the utmost importance to same-sex sexual attraction: hence the all-male and the all-female distinctions.
Phil: > How are sex differences "explained" as being of more importance to same-sex sexual attraction than to heterosexual sexual attraction?
He didn't argue that point. The hypocrisy is clearly in people like yourself who claim sex differences are not meaningful, while subscribing to a sexual orientation model which clearly ascribes the utmost importance to it.
Even so, you answer the point Chairm raised by offering supporting evidence, "I assure you, for every gay man you can find who insists that he is only attracted to men, I can find you 6 or 8 straight men who insist that they are only attracted to women".
Apparently the difference is meaningful. Enough said.
Chairm: > [W]hat are the essentials of "marriage" that merits the license and the accorded special status such that lines of eligibility may be drawn around its essentials?
Phil: > Are you talking about civil marriage, religious marriage, or marriage within a particulur subculture?
I'll make a proposal that I think you'll find more then generous. Lets leave it to those redrawing the lines of eligibility to decide. You pick the one you are redrawing lines for, and then note what its essential government verified qualities are so we can tell what the lines should be redrawn to be.
It is post-hoc to simply say a group should be included, and then re-define marriage to do so. Surely you have a sense for what government cares a marriage should be to qualify who's relationship is and who's relationship isn't a marriage.
Phil: Currently, no state in the union gives a $#!+ about whether a mixed-sex couple is capable of conceiving a child, or whether they plan to have children.
ReplyDeleteFalse, they do care. From a court decision in Arizona, for instance...
"Indisputably, the only sexual relationship capable of producing children is one between a man and a woman. The State could reasonably decide that by encouraging opposite-sex couples to marry [...]."
I've only quoted the decision, the rest of the argument is outlined in the link. But the decision is clearly based on whether or not couples can have children, as a means for supporting stability for the sake of children.
If a woman lacks a uterus, her husband is still choosing to partner with a person who lacks a uterus. A same-sex male couple also contains a man who is choosing to partner with a person who lacks a uterus. (It contains two, in fact.)
Um, I should remind you that the post you are replying to actually says,
"Another meaningful distinction which Phil overlooks is that the kind of infertility to which he refers when discussing a man-woman couple turns out to be an individual characteristic of one of the members, whereas that of the same-sex couple applies only to the pairing, itself. Either member or both members of a same-sex couple could, in fact, be fertile as he means it when talking about the man-woman couple. For those keeping score at home, constructing an argument by silently switching meanings is called an amphibology."
All three men in that example could be fertile without a uterus, however the woman is not. Just to underline that point, no pairing she enters into can be fertile. Op-Ed's point is that is different then the pairing, which comprises fertile individuals. And as Phil points out, one of them comprises two fertile individuals. So clearly any exception we give to the disabled (thinking of the poor woman) wouldn't extend to the two men.
And that is a meaningful difference Phil has only swept under the carpet. Or I would rather say, he's thrown the disabled under the bus by saying that difference is not meaningful in exploring exceptions to the rule.
Its always amazing how inhumane these arguments for neutering marriage wind up. Phil is asking us not to put gays on the same status as heterosexual couples (which are fertile as a truism) as much as having the same exception and assistance as the disabled, even though the same sex couple clearly is not.
The following is an attempt to avoid that point, but winds up hitting it again.
Phil: > It is also possible that a same-sex couple contains a member who possesses an "individual characteristic" that prevents him or her from conceiving or causing a child to be conceived.
In one case, a man marries a woman who cannot have a child. That way, she isn't barred from marriage because of her infertility, it is her right. He has enabled her in her disability.
In the fist example we enable a marriage even if one was disabled. In Phil's extension, we would enable obviously non-fertile arrangements to be a marriage because one might be disabled even if they did try. That would be akin to giving everyone a Social Security check, in case they might be disabled even if they did try to be employed.
Another approach, and one that is valid to consider, but we've wound up at the same point. And back at Chairm's point, in that Phil needs to draw first the essential elements that the government should consider and then draw the lines of eligibility around them. Doing so would avoid flawed post-hoc attempts such as equating homosexuality with a disability.
Phil: > What is the "pro-SSM view of sexual orientation?" Are you talking about the notion that sexual orientation exists?
ReplyDeletelater in the same comment:
> "As I mentioned, I have no knowledge of any of Weir's sexual activities. For all I know, he could be a virgin. But I'm saying that his sexual orienation is "homosexual," and if you disagree with that statement, feel free to say so."
It only exists scientifically if we define it and use that definition to predict ways we can observe it that are then observed.
So go ahead, answer the question. I think you make a good guess as to where this is going, but you can't side step it by assuming it exists, means whatever you define it to be must be right.
Go ahead, tell us what sexual orientation means to you that makes you assert that Johny Wier must be gay even though you know nothing of his sexual activities.
And while you do so I'll replay the following montage of scenes I stumbled upon in your rabbit hole:
_______________
A woman on a porch thinks that she is lucky she is loved, so what if he's gay. A million miles away, a true evil person(tm) lies on the deathbed grinning, Why? As an evil person who really did good works an entirely life, no one ever suspected otherwise! He truly lied and fooled everyone, and what greater pleasure for an evil guy? Sure good deeds happened, but that doesn't disprove he's a true evil person. His wife says, "so what if he's evil?"
A good person is up for trial, he is accused of really being evil. The prosecutor pulls the identity card! "Look at him, who by looking at him can tell he's not an evil person". No one can, the prosecutor looks sure to win. Poor guy.
The defense attorney learns from his loss. The next person, who everyone saw killing 20 people in McDonalds, is going to be saved. "There are people oriented towards good, and people oriented towards evil. Equality demands we treat them the same. Who are you going to trust, me or your lying eyes?"
And the woman goes home to her loving husband, enjoy a romantic night together, and all the while he is safe knowing that his friends won't harass him because they know deep down he really is gay.
Phil: Same-sex couples can't conceive babies, and some mixed-sex couples also cannot conceive babies.
ReplyDeleteNote Phil exposes another difference: all vs. some.
It's not a "circular argument" to say that these couples are the same, in terms of their abilities to conceive babies.
Yes, it is, just like saying all white swans are white. This is circular because the conclusion of the argument is merely a restatement of its definition.
Lots of relationships out there are the same as same-sex couplings "in terms of their abilities to conceive babies," including pet owners and their pets.
I haven't taken a position that would require the government to determine which man-woman couples are unable to conceive.
False. You argue that if the government grants a license to a man-woman couple where one of the members is infertile that is the same as granting a license to a same-sex couple. That argument depends on the government being able to tell with equal ease and equal certainty that a particular man-woman couple is infertile as that a particular same-sex coupling is infertile. You admit that premise is false, therefore your argument is invalid. It is also an amphibology which is invalid.
It is also possible that a same-sex couple contains a member who possesses an "individual characteristic" that prevents him or her from conceiving or causing a child to be conceived.
And allowing that individual to marry is different than redefining a same-sex coupling to be a marriage. You are simply amplifying the underlying amphibology.
On Lawn:
ReplyDeleteBut the decision is clearly based on whether or not couples can have children
Wrong. The decision is clearly based on whether same-sex couples can have children. That argument was written to deny same-sex couples the right to marry. No state in the union gives a $#!+ about whether mixed-sex couples can have children.
The fact that some mixed-sex couples are capable of conceiving children is a red herring that is used only when arguing about whether same-sex couples ought to have the right to marry.
On Lawn:
ReplyDeleteGo ahead, tell us what sexual orientation means to you that makes you assert that Johny Wier must be gay even though you know nothing of his sexual activities.
On Lawn, there is no point in arguing with someone if they agree with me.
So, if you disagree with my statement that Johnny Weir is gay, go ahead and say so explicitly.
It's all well and good to pretend this is a strictly philosophical debate, but there are plenty of real-world examples. My great-aunt knows that Johnny Weir is gay, even though she has never met him and has no knowledge of his sexual activities.
"Wrong. The decision is clearly based on whether same-sex couples can have children. That argument was written to deny same-sex couples the right to marry. No state in the union gives a $#!+ about whether mixed-sex couples can have children."
ReplyDelete"The fact that some mixed-sex couples are capable of conceiving children is a red herring that is used only when arguing about whether same-sex couples ought to have the right to marry."
This is a silly comment. Some of the worlds oldest legal codes have direct refrence to the importance of establishing paternity.
Every state marriage laws anticipate and allow for paternity presumtion.
The link between marriage & procreation is clear and obvious.
Arguing that it is some post hoc creation derived soley to fend-off gay "marriage makes you look not just dishonest put potentially delusional in your insistance.
Phil: On Lawn, there is no point in arguing with someone if they agree with me.
ReplyDeleteWho knows if I do or don't? That is the funny part. We've noted that your definition is entirely in the realm of unobservable fact, now you try to make it invisible on paper :)
You seem to have no clue what you are talking about, you can't provide any real instance of what gay means to you that you just know no matter how they actually behave, so why should I?
That isn't an agreement, unless you are admitting you don't have a clue.
Fitz, on 2/23:
ReplyDeleteThe link between marriage & procreation is clear and obvious.
Chairm, on 2/12:
[...]no one, but for you [Phil], has said that "the ability to conceive children" is a requirement for eligibility to marry.
Maybe you two want to talk that through.
Fitz:
Every state marriage laws anticipate and allow for paternity presumtion.
What you're saying is that every state currently has laws that presume that a woman's spouse is also the legal parent of her child, without regard to either (a)that person's ability to sire a child, or (b)whether that person impregnated the woman in question.
That's what "presumption" means. That's not an example of "the link between marriage and procreation." That's an example of how marriage ignores procreation; a spouse's relationship with their wife's child is legally independent of the act of creating the child.
Phil Thibedeaux
ReplyDeleteFalse Phil, paternity can be denied in multiple ways, but paternity is presumed legally if you hold yourself out (knowingly or not) for a certain period of time.
Now obviously (except to the delusional) paternity is impossible in male/male & female/female couples.
So that is the obvious reason for the presumtion. That the ability to procreate exists in that human coupling alone.
No one would presume another woman was the "father" of a child (petri- greek for father) - while maternity is easily established.
If you really want to be that abtuse then I suggest that you are just lying to yourself.
As far as Chairms points go's he is correct.
The ability of a particular couple to procreate is not required what IS required is that the couple be of the one and only KIND of human coupling (male & female) capable of procreation.
On Lawn:
ReplyDelete[...]you can't provide any real instance of what gay means to you that you just know no matter how they actually behave, so why should I?
I did provide a real instance: Johnny Weir. That's an actual, specific person, with whom we are all familiar. I'm not talking about my brother, or my roommate, or some other character you've never met.
As I've indicated earlier, sexual orientation is distinct from sexual activity. Sexual orientation is an innate attraction to members of a particular sex. Johnny Weir is a good example, because I have no knowledge of his sexual activities, and presumably, neither do you. So when I say that Johnny Weir is gay, I am talking about an innate quality, something that he just is.
I sense, On Lawn, that this really upsets you. You want to disagree with me, but you realize instinctively that you've painted youself into a corner. If you disagree with me that Johnny Weir is gay, then it follows that you think that either he's not gay, or that he's straight. Unfortunately, you know that typing the sentence "Johnny Weir is not gay" will make you look really stupid.
So you try to hide behind some verbal sleigh-of-hand. You make a few ad hominem attacks on me. That's fine. I understand that I've put you and perhaps others on this board in a difficult position.
But if you want to argue that there is no such thing as a homosexual person, who is innately attracted to members of the same sex, you are arguing that Johnny Weir is not gay. If you're afraid to say it, maybe it's because you know you're wrong, and you just don't want to look foolish.
Now, I invite you and anyone else who's been involved in this discussion to engage in some more pointless blathering, where you criticize my real-world example without actually disagreeing with my statement. Throw in some more ad hominem attacks. Rant and rave about perceived "contradictions." Write a couple of bizarre hypothetical examples that have nothing to do with the real world.
In short, do everything you can to avoid saying either "Johnny Weir is straight" or "Johnny Weir is not gay."
A good person is up for trial, he is accused of really being evil. The prosecutor pulls the identity card! "Look at him, who by looking at him can tell he's not an evil person". No one can, the prosecutor looks sure to win. Poor guy.
ReplyDeleteSo...you're arguing here that no one is innately anything, because no one is innately good or evil? That's your big "gotcha!?"
No one has perfect pitch, no one is left-handed, and no one is innately heterosexual? Because, if we accepted those things, we would logically have to accept that some people are innately evil and deserve to be sentenced to death no matter what actions they've performed? Is that what you're saying? Or were you just being silly for a minute there?
Fitz:
ReplyDeleteSo that is the obvious reason for the presumtion. That the ability to procreate exists in that human coupling alone.
Fitz, here's what you're saying:
The reason for the presumption is obvious: the ability to procreate exists in that human coupling alone, whether or not the ability to procreate exists in that human couple.
Fitz:
The ability of a particular couple to procreate is not required what IS required is that the couple be of the one and only KIND of human coupling (male & female) capable of procreation.
If I'm understanding you correctly, Fitz, what you're saying is that the abilty to procreate only matters when we're talking abotu same-sex couples. The ability to actually procreate never, ever matters, in any state in the union, when we're talking about mixed-sex couples. Is that accurate?
Phil: So...you're arguing here that no one is innately anything, because no one is innately good or evil? That's your big "gotcha!?"
ReplyDeleteNo, the big "gotcha" is that science requires observation. Why does Phil think proving he has little to no reading comprehension helps him in debate.
No one has perfect pitch, no one is left-handed, ...
Both observable.
...some people are innately evil and deserve to be sentenced to death no matter what actions they've performed? [emphasis added]
Wow! Some people should be put to death no matter what their actions are? So, not because of any crime they may have committed, just because of who they are. Who are these people? Jews? Blacks? Come on, Phil, who is it that no matter their actions, they should be put to death?
Phil
ReplyDeleteMen and women are the one and only coupelings of human beings that can procreate together. Same-sex couples are always and everywhere incapable of procreation.
It is not proper to call a same-sex couple infertile, they were never "fertile" to begin with.
The law recognizes what every second grader understands..only mom's & dad's can make babies.
That persistent claim is that a civil marriage restriction because of the heterosexual ability to naturally procreate is a constitutionally-invalid restriction or limitation on "the right to marry", because the restriction "discriminates" against homosexual couples who cannot procreate or on the other hand the law "discriminates" in favor of heterosexual couples who are childless and therefore who don't procreate at all.
There is a name for these distinctions in the effects of various laws -- these distinctions are called "underinclusiveness" and "overinclusiveness".
[BRIEF OVERVIEW]:
"Underinclusiveness
A characteristic of a statute or administrative rule dealing with First Amendment rights and other fundamental liberty interests, whereby the statute prohibits some conduct but fails to prohibit other, similar conduct.
An underinclusive law is not necessarily unconstitutional or invalid. The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that all laws are underinclusive and selective to some extent. If a law is substantially underinclusive, however, it may be unconstitutional.
...
A law is not necessarily invalid just because it is underinclusive. For example, a statute that prohibited the use of loudspeaker systems near a hospital might be underinclusive for failing to prohibit shouting or the use of car horns in the same area. This type of underinclusiveness concerns only the manner of delivering speech, however, and is therefore more likely to pass constitutional scrutiny than a statute that prohibits speech on particular subjects."....
As you might logically guess then, "overinclusiveness" is generally the flip side of underinclusiveness --
"overinclusiveness" involves a claim that a law ALLOWS some conduct but fails to allow other, similar conduct.
Phil: If I'm understanding you correctly, Fitz, ...
ReplyDeleteYou are not.
...what you're saying is that the abilty to procreate only matters when we're talking abotu same-sex couples.
No. It applies also to every couple that is not a man and a woman, including the owner/pet example I gave above. Also, if you thought about it, you'd realize that it applies to several man-woman situations as well.
These factual errors on your part underscore what Fitz said earlier:
"Arguing that it is some post hoc creation derived soley to fend-off gay "marriage makes you look not just dishonest put potentially delusional in your insistance."
op-ed:
ReplyDeleteNo. It applies also to every couple that is not a man and a woman, including the owner/pet example I gave above
You're saying that the reason we disallow owner/pet marriages is because those couples cannot procreate? Is that what you really believe?
Phil: You're saying that the reason we disallow owner/pet marriages is because those couples cannot procreate?
ReplyDeletePhil, why these constant attempts to prove yourself a poor thinker? How can that possibly make your case more credible?
The point, as explicitly stated, is that all relationships not between man and woman are excluded. That point is not refuted by showing there may be additional reasons for any specific case within that category.
Phil Thibedeaux (writes) " As I've indicated earlier, sexual orientation is distinct from sexual activity. Sexual orientation is an innate attraction to members of a particular sex. Johnny Weir is a good example, because I have no knowledge of his sexual activities, and presumably, neither do you. So when I say that Johnny Weir is gay, I am talking about an innate quality, something that he just is."
ReplyDeleteIt is ironic that in the worldview of the modern left, significant differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals (which science shows to be extraordinarily difficult to characterize and wholly unstable) are argued to be innate, while significant differences between men and women (which are enormous, self-evident and permanent) are argued to be at once trivial and socially constructed.
This statement does not contradict the presence of “indirect genetic factors” influencing homosexuality. Most people mistakenly presume that an indirect genetic influence refers to a mere technical distinction. In fact, the distinction is crucial. Basketball playing shows a very strong, arguably stronger than homosexuality, indirect genetic influence, but there are no genes for basketball playing —it is a wholly “environmentally” influenced behavior subject to a high degree of choice —much higher than same-sex attraction. The crucial point is that genes that indirectly influence a trait have nothing at all to do with the trait itself and therefore can’t possibly “cause” it. The genes that influence the likelihood someone will become a basketball player are self -evident: Those that code for height, athleticism, muscle refresh rate. There are, at present, even strong racial genetic associations to basketball playing. These associations are almost entirely socially-determined while the genes themselves are biological (and evolved in an era before basketball playing even existed), and the associational degree (i.e., with race) fluctuates over time as basketball spreads across the globe.
Fitz,
ReplyDeleteYour response regarding "underinclusiveness" and "overinclusivenss" was excellent. You understood my argument and responded to the substance of it.
Here's where I think you're wrong.
With regard to underinclusiveness, it's entirely possible that the state might choose not to ban certain behaviors because it is simply not feasible to do so. Your example regarding loud speakers near hospitals is a good one; it may simply not be feasible to also place legal limits on shouting, honking car horns, etc.
Another example might be states that ban the use of cell phones while driving. In truth, there are many behaviors that drivers can engage in that impair their ability to drive: eating, applying makeup, arguing heatedly with passengers, fishing for compact discs, etc.
However, in both of those cases, society can (and usually does) recognize that, even though the law does not ban each specific behavior, citizens ought to refrain from those behaviors. It might be legal to shout loudly near a maternity ward, but we recognize, generally, that it's not a nice thing to do.
You might not get pulled over if you apply mascara in the rearview mirror while you are driving to work, but it is uncontroversial to say that drivers ought to choose not to put on makeup while driving, or engage in any other behavior that might distract them from their task.
If you're claiming that the government only allows mixed-sex-couples-incapable-of-conceiving-a-child to marry because it isn't feasible for the state to do otherwise, then it follows that such couples ought to choose not to marry. The state may not be able to police them, but it would be reasonable to expect barren women to remain single, just as it is reasonable to expect drivers to keep their eyes on the road.
In fact, no hypothetical example you could come up with regarding specifically the inability to conceive, would be considered, in and of itself, sufficient reason to advise an adult citizen to choose to never enter into a heterosexual marriage.
That's why I say that the ability to conceive children is a red herring. You're pretending that the laws are underinclusive, in that they allow some behaviors that ought to be banned, even while they ban similar marriages. But in truth, you don't really believe that the laws are underinclusive, because (unless you're some bizarre fringe wacko) you don't actually believe that mixed-sex-couples-incapable-of-conceiving-a-child are doing something wrong.
Does that make sense? I'm not trying to be snarky here; I feel like you actually have a handle on the logic of the argument but you're not seeing the subtleties.
Fitz:
ReplyDeleteIt is ironic that in the worldview of the modern left, significant differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals (which science shows to be extraordinarily difficult to characterize and wholly unstable)
Difficult to characterize, yes. And yet, even you demonstrated that know you've got to keep the discussion hypothetical and academic. You chose not to address the real-world example, Johnny Weir, because you know as well as I do that he's gay.
Your silence spoke volumes.
Phil: Your silence spoke volumes.
ReplyDeleteAnd your noise speaks volumes. Arguing from silence is yet another fallacy.
op-ed wrote:
ReplyDeleteSome people should be put to death no matter what their actions are?
Seriously? I can't believe you would say that, op-ed. Who are these people? Ethnic Albanians? Lesbians? Come on, op-ed, since you clearly believe that someone who asks a question about a comment is endorsing the view of the question, who are these people who should be put to death?
op-ed:
ReplyDeleteArguing from silence is yet another fallacy.
Thanks for the link, op-ed. Here's a direct quote from that article:
"When used as a logical proof in pure reasoning, the argument is classed among the fallacies, but an argument from silence can be a convincing form of abductive reasoning."
My hypothesis is that no one who makes the claim that there is no such thing as an innate sexual orientation is going to be willing to make the perfectly reasonable claim that Johnny Weir is not gay, because you know I'm right.
Your silence does not prove me right--if I were to claim that it does, that would be a fallacy, op-ed. But you could prove me wrong in an instant if you wanted to. And you don't, because you know as well as I do that Johnny Weir is gay.
But go ahead, distract from that point by writing about something else. Have at it.
I see the "subtalties", I just dont think their subtle at all. The fact that only male/female pairs can producer children is always and everywere obvious even to the yougest.
ReplyDeleteProcreation is the reason detra of marriage. The state dosent have any real interest in couples cohabitating for life outside childbearing/rearing.
Same-sex "marriage" breaks the connection between marriage and procreation because same-sex couples are ALWAYS AND EVERYWERE incapapble of procreation.
Male -female couples are only possibly incapable of procreation and even when they are still remain an example that heterosexual activity should be confined to marriage because of its procreative potential.
Homosexuality is just to small a phenomena (and ungenerative) and unimportant to go changing the law and culture as a bone to throw this group for the sake of "inclusivness"
Phil Thibedeaux (writes) know you've got to keep the discussion hypothetical and academic. You chose not to address the real-world example, Johnny Weir, because you know as well as I do that he's gay."
ReplyDeleteI have never even heard of "Johnny Weir" so I cant say if he has sex with other men or not?
Was I required to read the entire thread?
Phil: ...you clearly believe that someone who asks a question about a comment is endorsing the view of the question...
ReplyDeleteHowever clear that is to you, it is still false - or am I only assuming what I believe?
You have gone from resting your entire argument on the fact that a post-hysterectomy woman is indistinguishable from a "gay" man to resting on the fact that you can't think "clearly."
Phil: And you don't, because you know as well as I do that Johnny Weir is gay.
ReplyDeleteActually, I don't because I have no interest in engaging your deliberately circular argument. Tell me, if there is no evidence of little green moon men, what do you call little green men on the moon? Answering the question one way or the other isn't going to settle anything and is likely to encourage more nonsensical and circular questions from someone with a demonstrated propensity for them.
Phil: Thanks for the link, op-ed.
ReplyDeleteYou're welcome.
Here's a direct quote from that article:
I'm just impressed you actually followed a link.
"...an argument from silence can be a convincing form of abductive reasoning."
Unless you quoted this sentence just to impress me that you actually followed the link, you must think "abductive" is something less than pejorative. Here are some examples of "abductive" reasoning for you:
It "speaks volumes" that you haven't said you are not a child molester.
Since men don't have a uterus, and a post-hysterectomy woman doesn't have a uterus, a post hysterectomy woman is clearly a man.
Fitz:
ReplyDeleteI have never even heard of "Johnny Weir" so I cant say if he has sex with other men or not?
Actually, Fitz, I never said that he has sex with men. I said he's gay. As I indicated earlier in the thread, by that I mean that he is innately homosexual--a person who is attracted to members of the same sex.
Johnny Weir is an Olympic figure skater. Here's a site with more information:
http://tinyurl.com/yz7dq4x
op-ed:
ReplyDeleteActually, I don't because I have no interest in engaging your deliberately circular argument.
The statement "Johnny Weir is gay" is not a circular argument.
Tell me, if there is no evidence of little green moon men, what do you call little green men on the moon?
Actually, op-ed, I would respond to that by saying that there are no little green men on the moon. See how that works? When someone says something and you think it's wrong, you can just say so, instead of
engag[ing] in some more pointless blathering, where you criticize [that person's] real-world example without actually disagreeing with [the] statement.
and/or
Writ[ing] a couple of bizarre hypothetical examples that have nothing to do with the real world.
Also, I'm not a child molester. Are you?
Phil: The statement "Johnny Weir is gay" is not a circular argument.
ReplyDeleteNo, it is an assertion. Now see if you can find the argument you are attempting to make based on that single assertion and then tell me if it is circular.
there are no little green men on the moon.
Then what do you call little green men on the moon? You didn't answer my question. Which word don't you understand, little, green, or men? If they are little and green and men, then you'd have to call them little green men, wouldn't you? And if they are on the moon, then they are little green moon men.
Also, I'm not a child molester.
That's just what a child molester would say. Phil-logically, that means you are one.
Phil: I did provide a real instance [of what gay means]: Johnny Weir.
ReplyDeleteJust aligning the sentences shows how inane your reasoning is. But maybe you are right, I just looked up the definition of gullible in the dictionary, and I saw your picture :)
Sexual orientation is an innate attraction to members of a particular sex.
Well, there you go. That looks like a definition. But that definition doesn't support whether or not people can have wonderful, romantic and even erotic marriages. With all of your avoidance of that point, with all of your demand that people make an exception to marriage because they cannot, I thought you would come up with something more, well, meaningful.
Marriage is a choice of commitment, and should remain strong even if sexual attraction dies (for accidents which disfigure, getting old and fat, or even discovering a new orientation).
The very fact that Olson (and perhaps you) demand marriage be neutered for the sake of homosexuality --the immutable dominant quality of a person's identity -- shows a underestimation of what marriage really means and should require. And it is exactly where this turns into the same ugly identity politics as was perpetrated by slave owners and racial segregationists.
I've said it before, I'm not going to require gays to marry someone of the other gender. But I'm not going to tell gays they can't get married -- when that marriage means at least integrating with the other gender in some meaningfully marital way. I'm not going to say any one can't do it, to be honest. I think that may keep people from exercising a right that we all have.
You can tell people that there is some identity that requires they have to segregate with others of that same identity. I won't. George Wallace may turn over in his grave with envy that the argument works for you and not for him, but I will not be a part of it.
Johnny Weir is a good example, because I have no knowledge of his sexual activities, and presumably, neither do you.
So you admit you are looking for unverifiable examples. Hey, if you believe that I've got a rock to sell you that is worth millions. It keeps dinosaurs away. And aliens from planet Zurkon ... that is a new feature.
That's just what a child molester would say. Phil-logically, that means you are one.
ReplyDeleteExactly, according to Phil just an innate attraction to something means you are ... even if you never act on it. So its proven (in Phil-logic) that since Phil exists, he is a molester no matter what his actions say.
I want to ask everyone how they would feel if, like Phil's school-yard charades, people called you gay no matter what you did. Imagine that you were happily married, but people stalked you expecting your marriage to fail -- because they think you are gay.
Allow me to introduce you to a website that does just that. It is called "ex-gay watch". And believe me, contrary to the title, they are out to prove that ex-gays don't exist.
And contrary to Phil's wild accusations and assertions, while gay may mean they are attracted to members of their own sex, ex-gay simply means they want (and often have) romantically fulfilling marriages. Where they love, honor, and cherish someone of the other gender, and not segregate with their own.
Gays may exist, but any claim that any particular gay cannot be an ex-gay is unverifiable. If the existence of gays should shake our understanding of marriage as Phil-logic suggests, then the existence of ex-gays is equally meaningful. We all can choose our destinies, what we do and how we act is what brings us the consequences of those actions. No one has to be gay, no one has to be an ex-gay. But we can be, if we choose. And the existence of people who have chosen shows that.
You can tell people that there is some identity that requires they have to segregate with others of that same identity. I won't.
ReplyDeleteProviding people the option of marrying someone who shares their identity is not the same thing as telling them that they have to segregate with others of that same identity.
If you told Jews that they could not marry Jews, or Catholics that they cannot marry other Catholics, you would be making the same ignorant argument that you're making now.
On Lawn:
ReplyDeleteI want to ask everyone how they would feel if, like Phil's school-yard charades, people called you gay no matter what you did.
On Lawn, have I called someone gay who isn't gay?
Do you call a person who has two X chomosomes and a vagina a woman no matter what they do?
I've never said that a gay person can't choose to have sex with a member of the opposite sex. If you recall, I make a distinction between sexual orientation and sexual behavior.
And if it's not clear to you, I don't view being gay (or straight) as a negative thing. It's not a pejorative when I use it. If you have a problem with someone being called gay, that's your own issue.
Of course, if you think I'm wrong about Johnny Weir, you could say so. But instead, you blather on about other hypothetical examples, because you know damn well that I'm right.
I haven't pointed out any married men who are gay. I haven't brought up ex-Gays, although I did acknowledge that humans are capable of having sex with a gender that they aren't oriented toward. I haven't made the claim that it is always possible to know someone else's sexual orientation.
I've just made one assertion, which you could easily argue, if you thought it was untrue: Johnny Weir is gay.
Marriage is a choice of commitment, and should remain strong even if sexual attraction dies
ReplyDeleteI think we both agree here. However, your phrasing ("if sexual attraction dies") suggests that sexual attraction will, at some earlier point, exist.
It's not clear whether you believe that a marriage should have sexual attraction at some point in its duration, but sexual attraction cannot die unless it was there in the first place, can it?
Phil: Providing people the option of marrying someone who shares their identity is not the same thing as telling them that they have to segregate with others of that same identity.
ReplyDeleteAre either acceptable? They may or may not be the same, but does that make one right and the other wrong?
Forcing segregation as the GLBT might do as a social matter in how people marry is obviously not an enlightened approach.
Allowing people to segregate their marriages means children are raised without a mother or father (if children are involved and they often are). Saying that segregation is equivalent to the equality of integration is itself an egregious notion. Separate but equal, isn't equal.
In the civil rights movement, even the option of segregation was considered a violation of equal protection. In marriage, the option is just as much a violation of equal protection as forcing people to.
There is one difference, which I might guess you agree with, however. Even where such segregation exists where the government mistakenly says segregation is equal to integration, people might still know better for themselves.
Even if people like you call them gay based on no verifiable evidence at all.
If you told Jews that they could not marry Jews, or Catholics that they cannot marry other Catholics, you would be making the same ignorant argument that you're making now.
I think that is a cute attempt. But that would be true if and only if religion was like gender -- you could choose it for yourself.
As it is, two people who have children will have the opportunity to be Catholic, Jew, or otherwise. They will, however be male or female. And thus it is an advantage to have the mother and the father around, to provide role models and bolster a child's sense of self worth. It is equal representation, marriage equality, that gender integration serves for the child's identity.
Religion is a journey the child will go on their own, with many "fathers" and "mothers". But they only have one of each gender that created them. And marriage reflects that.
On Lawn, have I called someone gay who isn't gay?
ReplyDeleteMy hypothesis explores the likelihood of if you did in your Johny Wier example.
I know in your mind you can't possibly be wrong, so perhaps that is immaterial to you. But to people who are more sensitive and understanding -- basically who live in a real world of individuals and not in their own heads -- that possibility is cause for discretion.
Do you call a person who has two X chomosomes and a vagina a woman no matter what they do?
Ah, so sexual orientation is like gender. So what chromosome is the gay chromosome again?
I did laugh when I read this, knowing you argued a woman with a hysterectomy is no different then a man.
If you recall, I make a distinction between sexual orientation and sexual behavior.
Exactly, because behavior can be observed. You've shown me quite often in this thread that you favor unverifiable arguments.
By the way, I'm still selling the rock that keeps away Dinosaurs and aliens from Zurkon ... oh and did I mention it protects you from Higgs-Boson particles too!
You seem especially an viable customer for just such a device. Don't ask me how, I just know it as surely as you know Johny Wier is gay.
If you have a problem with someone being called gay, that's your own issue.
I don't actually. But that doesn't mean I'm a jerk and run around vocalizing my suspicions of who is or isn't gay, just because I think so. Thats just rude.
But instead, you blather on about other hypothetical examples, because you know damn well that I'm right.
Funny, I'm just as right about my rock warding off all sorts of dangers (Dinosaurs, Zurkonians, and Higgs-Boson particles) as you are about Johny. No, in fact I'm twice as right about my rock as you are about Johny :)
And you know you can't prove otherwise. Can you afford to be wrong and not buy my rock? I didn't think so...
I did acknowledge that humans are capable of having sex with a gender that they aren't oriented toward
Perfectly erotic and romantic sex, sure. Probably not meaningfully different then sex with a woman with a hysterectomy, if you love them.
So what was your point again?
I haven't made the claim that it is always possible to know someone else's sexual orientation.
No, you've just made the argument that you are sure whether you know or not. Well, I'm doubly sure about my rock :)
sexual attraction cannot die unless it was there in the first place, can it?
ReplyDeleteGotcha... Perhaps you should argue that point with the person above who responded to the following question
'Now you're saying that someone could be happily married and then suddenly "realize" they have been wrong all this time about their orientation.'
With the following answer:
Sure, why not? Most people assume they are just like everyone else, and it can take years to realize that, in fact, they are different.
When you come up with the answer with that person, just let me know...
On Lawn:
ReplyDeleteIn the civil rights movement, even the option of segregation was considered a violation of equal protection.
Are you saying that during the civil rights movement, the option of marrying someone of the same race was considered a violation of equal protection? Can you provide a source for that?
On Lawn:
ReplyDeleteAh, so sexual orientation is like gender.
Yes, very much so. A lot of modern scholarship recognizes a difference between gender and sex. And a trans woman, for example, may be either homosexual or heterosexual. So gender is distinct from sex is distinct from sexual orientation.
Don't ask me how, I just know it as surely as you know Johny Wier[sic] is gay.
So, if I'm understanding your post here, you seem to be saying that you take issue with the fact that I haven't explained how I know that Johnny Weir is gay, or you are assuming that my method for determining whether he's gay is flawed.
That's entirely possible. But it doesn't make him straight, does it?
You don't have to call me wrong to find fault with my statement. You could simply say that I might be wrong. But you keep dancing around that, and keeping the discussion hypothetical.
Sure, you're willing to imply that it's somehow "morally" wrong--or "rude"--to call someone gay. But you avoid dealing with whether it's factually wrong.
If I picked a gay person who was known to be sexually active, it wouldn't illustrate so beautifully the difference between sexual orientation and sexual behavior.
You seem especially an viable customer for just such a device. Don't ask me how, I just know it as surely as you know Johny Wier is gay.
Here's where your analogy falls apart:
I don't believe that your rock keeps away Dinosaurs and aliens from Zurkon. I think you're wrong. In truth, I think you just came up with that as a hypothetical example because you don't understand the shallowness of your own arguments.
See how that worked? You made an outlandish claim, and I said I think you're wrong.
You are taking a concept that you say is "unprovable" and confusing that with a concept being untrue. A concept may be elusive, but that doesn't mean it can't be discussed.
Phil: Can you provide a source for that?
ReplyDeleteThe doctrine of separate but equal is not equal, is a reference to something very specific. If you don't know what it is, I'm happy to educate you in civil rights history.
[...] you seem to be saying [...]
We have another person here who shows desperation by spouting a bunch of non-sense under the same guise "you seem to be saying". I'm happy to correct you only to a point. And then I will just let you twist in the wind.
By pretending others say just as crazy things as you do only reflects on your reading comprehension and projection.
[...] I haven't explained how I know that Johnny Weir is gay
Two problems:
1) You're inability to know the difference between what is obviously a self-assured assumption, and knowledge, only discredits yourself. I'm happy to keep poking you with reality and let you react with your own fantasy, just to let it discredit you.
2) Suspiciously enough, you've said of your own opinion
a) behavior of any type wouldn't prove you wrong (to yourself at least)
b) it comes up with false negatives, and if you were more honest with yourself, false positives.
Quite honestly, it sounds like you have no idea what you are talking about, except that you are very sure of it. And that you've built up fortifications against reality to hold your position. I actually have found that pretty amusing through this thread.
I mean some people rest their arguments on verifiable and observable facts. Some people rest their arguments on reasoning that clearly and reliably brings about predictable results.
And then there is Phil... who rests his case on his own ability to create delusions.
There is still time to get that rock.
[...] you are assuming that my method for determining whether he's gay is flawed.
You do keep it entertaining. One can already tell your method is flawed, simply by your own admission -- in spite of your assertions and hubris. (Note the enumeration in the preceding portion of this comment)
I said this already about your opinion, and you've only shown me right ever since.
______
You know, its impossible to disprove that Bigfoot exists also. For no matter how many times people claim there is evidence, and it gets shot down, we don't know exactly what the true Bigfoot is to say that the evidence to the contrary has really ruled it out.
Now my point is not that a true homosexual does or does not exist. My point is simply that the true homosexual is just an ideal, a realm far away and safe from scientific authority.
__________
You're ability to convince yourself in spite of evidence to the contrary, is in an even bigger rut then Bigfoot followers.
At some point people just want to believe.
Here's where your analogy falls apart:
I don't believe that your rock keeps away Dinosaurs and aliens from Zurkon.
You are assuming quite a bit, if you think that is a difference. I already know my rock is more reliable then your gay-dar. Fewer people who have used these rocks have been harmed by Dinosaurs, Zurkonians, and Higgs-Boson particles then your methods have created false positives and false negatives (by your own admission).
you don't understand the shallowness of your own arguments. [.. earlier ..] If I picked a gay person who was known to be sexually active, it wouldn't illustrate so beautifully the difference between sexual orientation and sexual behavior.
Yet by that example alone it is clear you are the one who is not only relying on shallow arguments, but already built up a belief system to hold onto them in spite of evidence to the contrary.
Those arguments of yours seem to have more sentimental value, then usable value.
behavior of any type wouldn't prove you wrong (to yourself at least)
ReplyDeleteWhere did I say that, OL?
I said that he's a particularly good example because we don't know anything about his sexual activities. I didn't say that, if he actually does have sex with men, that somehow means he's not gay. He would just cease to be a good example for the purposes of discussions like this, where the difference between sexual orientation and sexual activity is an important point.
I used to mention Clay Aiken instead of Johnny Weir. Unfortunately, Clay came out of the closet. Naturally, people like you sent apologetic emails and acknowledged that I was right all along. ;)
On Lawn:
ReplyDeleteYou know, its impossible to disprove that Bigfoot exists also.
Again, you show a failure to grasp the difference between "unverifiable" and "false."
It may be impossible to disprove that Bigfoot exists, but that doesn't mean, On Lawn, that he does exist.
Bigfoot's existence, or nonexistence, is a fact that is independent of your ability to verify it.
then your methods have created false positives and false negatives (by your own admission)
When have my methods created false positives? The only two people I have claimed are gay, in this discussion, are Clay Aiken and Johnny Weir.
If they're not gay, say so. Otherwise, acknowledge that I'm correct and apologize. But don't pretend there's a "false positive" unless you are willing to point out what that false positive is.
You're exhibiting the behavior of a partisan hack: you mindlessly attack everything I say, whether you understand it or not.
You say that Bigfoot exists, and I say: you're wrong; he doesn't. You say that your rock will ward off aliens and I said that you're wrong.
I said that Johnny Weir is gay and you said:
You're[sic] inability to know the difference between what is obviously a self-assured assumption, and knowledge, only discredits yourself.
Some people rest their arguments on reasoning that clearly and reliably brings about predictable results.
Yet by that example alone it is clear you are the one who is not only relying on shallow arguments, but already built up a belief system to hold onto them in spite of evidence to the contrary.
And then there is Phil... who rests his case on his own ability to create delusions.
Funny, I'm just as right about my rock warding off all sorts of dangers
I know in your mind you can't possibly be wrong, so perhaps that is immaterial to you. But to people who are more sensitive and understanding -- basically who live in a real world of individuals and not in their own heads -- that possibility is cause for discretion.
You seem to have no clue what you are talking about, you can't provide any real instance of what gay means to you that you just know no matter how they actually behave, so why should I?
That's a lot of posting for someone who can't be bothered to say that my claim was wrong.
Now, formal logic doesn't require you to state the negative of my claim in order to refute me. You don't have to say that Johnny Weir is straight, for example. You could say that he may or may not be gay, or that he's bisexual, etc. You could say that he can't be gay because there is no such thing as a homosexual orientation.
But, in spite of your attempts to pretend you're merely a prank computer program designed to type gobbledygook in twenty-minute intervals, you are a human being. You have eyes. You have ears. And you know as well as I do that Johnny Weir is gay.
I'll bet you $200 that Johnny Weir will come out, publicly, as a homosexual, within five years after the end of his skating career. I have no secret insider knowledge, On Lawn. I have no more access to information about Johnny Weir than you do.
This is a prediction based on observable fact: he will acknowledge to a major media outlet that he is gay. Here's your chance to show that you actually disagree with what I'm saying, instead of just reflexively pretending that my words don't make sense to you.
If you want, after you accept the bet, we can exchange contact information, or if you're uncomfortable with that, we can try to agree on a third party to hang onto our contact info and judge the outcome of the bet.
That's a lot of posting for someone who can't be bothered to say that my claim was wrong.
ReplyDeleteOn the contrary, You've missed the simplicity, and accuracy of my argument. I'm saying you are wrong in a way you aren't even realizing, and refusing to discuss. A way you are refusing to even acknowledge. Why you don't realize it, is simply an amazing display of hubris.
I don't care if Wier is gay or not because, believe it or not, you would still be wrong if he was.
Oh, if you said, "I bet that he is gay" your bet might be right. But you are saying you know he is, you might be right or wrong about Weir, but you are wrong about yourself. You don't know, you're guessing.
Even worse, your point is actually that sexual orientation is independent of behavior and you've only said in defense of that assertion that Weir is an example of that. You've put the cart before the horse in that your conclusion is now supporting your evidence.
And its made me chuckle, the more you try to rely on your own bluster and hubris. Not only do you misjudge your own assertions, you misjudged myself (something I am an authority of).
Your bluster has included a misjudgment that my silence on an issue is evidence to support yours. I am more cautious in making a bet against yours (I find it frivolous, asinine, irrelevant, and presumptuous to bet on that at all). In other words, you are not only mistaking your own guesses as facts, you are mistaking my discretion as evidence you are right. Two wrongs don't make a right.
Now, I've said that before. I'll say it a few more times just so others understand clearly what my position really is, rather then assuming that you may ever be honest about what my argument really is :)
And that you keep asserting wrongly what my position is, and clearly asserting your own position as fact, just shows you incapable if sound judgment.
On Lawn:
ReplyDeleteEven worse, your point is actually that sexual orientation is independent of behavior and you've only said in defense of that assertion that Weir is an example of that.
That's not quite accurate, On Lawn. You see, the idea that sexual orientation and sexual behavior are two different things is definitional. That is to say, whether or not sexual orientation is innate, the definition of sexual orientation involves it being an "orientation," not a behavior.
You can argue about definitions, but those arguments don't use examples in the same way because they are meta-discourse.
Johnny Weir is an illustration of this. If he is "evidence," then he is evidence of the claim that sexual orientation is innate, which is a separate claim.
It's possible that I'm not always correct when I'm inferring what your position is, just as it's possible that you are blustering to try to save face.
But I was absolutely correct about one thing: I knew you weren't going to accept my bet, On Lawn.
Maybe I know your positions better than you think?
[...] definition of sexual orientation involves it being an "orientation," not a behavior [...]
ReplyDeleteI do look forward to these chats of ours. You are wrong so often, but confident nonetheless.
You realize that by definition, sex is a behavior. By definition sexual is a behavior. By definition, sexual orientation categorizes behavior. The post above notes that a major tenet of those seeking to overthrow marriage equality (recognizing the rights and responsibilities of one man and one woman, and the children they potentially have together) is based on a disadvantage to marry someone of the other gender (which is also a behavior).
Saying that sexual orientation does not involve behavior, or is independent of behavior, or different then behavior is simply wrong -- by definition. But if you wish to argue that, and contradict the testimony discussed in the article above, then you may do so.
If he is "evidence," then he is evidence of the claim that sexual orientation is innate, which is a separate claim.
Actually, we've already established that Johny Weir was not presented by you as evidence. You presented only your own guesses as to his orientation. That was an assertion, and as such was not evidence of anything in this debate, other then your poor judgement in making the bet in the first place.
just as it's possible that you are blustering to try to save face.
Ah, yes. The realm of academic where anything is technically possible. Especially since I've shown where you are supporting your argument clearly by bluster.
But like I said earlier, you imagine that it is possible others are just as inane as you've behaved here. And so you present it as an academic possibility. The less it is grounded in anything observable, the safer you are making such wild assumptions.
The problem is my arguments are verifiable, and that is different then yours.
But if you still want to believe that it is possible, I have a rock to sell you that keeps away Dinosaurs. Did I mention that already? ;)
But I was absolutely correct about one thing: I knew you weren't going to accept my bet, On Lawn. Maybe I know your positions better than you think?
So you admit that it is simply stupid to bet on that either way? Good enough, I accept :)
You would know that ,if you knew my position at all. :)
You realize that by definition, sex is a behavior. By definition sexual is a behavior. By definition, sexual orientation categorizes behavior.
ReplyDelete"Sex" also means gender, as in the quality of being male or female. (Wow, some of the people on these boards have problems with homonyms.)
Sexual orientation does deal with sex, indirectly. It's about who you want to have sex with. But as most people on the planet can tell you, wanting to have sex with someone is not the same as having sex with them.
Yep, I was waiting for this one. Speaking of bets, I observed that Phil was oriented to arguments of convenience. I could have bet he would switch if given the right opportunity. The latest example...
ReplyDeletePhil before: > A lot of modern scholarship recognizes a difference between gender and sex.
But when given some thought we see a new light...
Phil now: > "Sex" also means gender, as in the quality of being male or female.
Ah, a definitional equivalence for something that is academically different.
You might also contrast this to even earlier when he asserted that... "My point is that there is no meaningful difference between a same-sex couple and an infertile (mixed-sex) couple."
This is meaningful as we watch him jump around in an argument about sexual orientation...
Phil recently: > That's not quite accurate, On Lawn. You see, the idea that sexual orientation and sexual behavior are two different things is definitional.
Phil now: > Sexual orientation does deal with sex [the behavior], indirectly.
However "indirect" it is to have the word "sex" in "sexual orientation" that is... :)
""Sex" also means gender, as in the quality of being male or female."
ReplyDeleteAnd we shouldn't have to explain that the very word "Sex" indicates such an important binary complementarity. The terms "male" and "female" lose all meaning without assuming the unique and powerful forces of combining the two.
Take a padlock, for instance. Without a key, it's just a useless hunk of metal. Likewise a key is useless scrap metal, if it doesn't belong to a lock. The very notion of a "Lock" implies both the male (key) and the female (locking mechanism), combining to become a particularly effective security device.
So it's certainly arguable that what gays and lesbians do in private isn't even sex. It's more akin to mutual masturbation. As impotent as two keys pretending to be a complete security device.
I think it's hilarious that On Lawn believes himself to be the intellectual equal of, for instance, Dale Carpenter. The man is a professor at a top twenty law school, a respected scholar who has been called upon to testify before Congress on numerous occasions, and a clear and effective communicator; whereas On Lawn has a computer and a lot of free time, and can't manage an error-free post, regardless of its length.
ReplyDeleteHow about trying to articulate a coherent argument of your own, On Lawn, instead of setting yourself up as arbiter of the soundness of others' positions? At the very least, quit accusing others of hubris; that is the best example of the pot calling the kettle black that I have ever seen.
Marty,
ReplyDeletewhat about a combination padlock?
Also, I want to commend you on reaching the same conclusion as all those high school girls who let their boyfriends sodomize them, believing that their virginity is thereby kept intact.
Finally, I find it telling that you view the female genitalia as a locking mechanism, and that the topic of impotence made an appearance in your post.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAh, a definitional equivalence for something that is academically different.
ReplyDeleteOn Lawn, did you see my statement up above about homonyms?
Regardless, what's your point? Are you making the claim that the term "sexual orientation" can only refer to who a person actually has sex with, and not who a person is oriented toward? Is that what you're saying?
Phil: Regardless, what's your point?
ReplyDeleteHaving trouble reading, Phil? On Lawn pointed out multiple occasions where you contradicted yourself. I'd say that was his point. He also said this:
"I observed that Phil was oriented to arguments of convenience. I could have bet he would switch if given the right opportunity." [emphasis added]
Another good indicator his point is the inconsistency of your arguments.
The "point" is obvious and plainly stated. Why do you ask? Do you really have that much trouble with reading comprehension or do you simply think that by acting stupid you are bolstering your argument?
Are you making the claim that the term "sexual orientation" can only refer to who a person actually has sex with, and not who a person is oriented toward? Is that what you're saying?
ReplyDeleteYou are trying the dishonest routine of misrepresenting my point, goading me to try to correct it again. This time you are doing it by arguing the extremes, if it isn't one extreme it is the other.
And my purpose is not as much a point as a probe...
She could look directly into the camera and say, "He loves me. So what if he's gay?"
Could there be such a monogamous, completely fulfilling relationship in every romantic and erotic way? I've yet to see you really figure that one out for yourself (I believe I have my own answer, but it is only a guess).
I've toyed with that proposition before, and repeated it often to illicit a direct response from you, to no avail...
"And the woman goes home to her loving husband, enjoy a romantic night together, and all the while he is safe knowing that his friends won't harass him because they know deep down he really is gay."
Repeated:
" And the woman goes home to her loving husband, enjoy a romantic night together, and all the while he is safe knowing that his friends won't harass him because they know deep down he really is gay."
"Well, there you go. That looks like a definition. But that definition doesn't support whether or not people can have wonderful, romantic and even erotic marriages. With all of your avoidance of that point, with all of your demand that people make an exception to marriage because they cannot, I thought you would come up with something more, well, meaningful."
"And contrary to Phil's wild accusations and assertions, while gay may mean they are attracted to members of their own sex, ex-gay simply means they want (and often have) romantically fulfilling marriages. Where they love, honor, and cherish someone of the other gender, and not segregate with their own."
[continued...]
And when you said: I did acknowledge that humans are capable of having sex with a gender that they aren't oriented toward
ReplyDeleteI replied,
"Perfectly erotic and romantic sex, sure. Probably not meaningfully different then sex with a woman with a hysterectomy, if you love them."
So the question (which is different then a point) is, so what if he or she is gay? In real life, no doubt they both struggled over issues. To have them happy in a fulfilling married in that scenario is their own reward. You derided it with sarcasm, and my efforts since was to probe just what you might believe worthy of mockery. And apparently there is no reason, there is no "so what?"
That is my question, and my purpose in this conversation with you. At the end, from this conversation I see no reason to assume that woman has made any mistakes, or that man. I have no reason to assume they are missing out on anything, or should be mocked in any way. I don't know, maybe you do. Maybe like your other arguments you are keeping it protected from scrutiny.
Maybe you hope that others who buy into a philosophy like yours will simply hear the dog-whistle in that mockery. Perhaps I hear it too, having listened to the arguments of numerous gays in this forum. But often our premises (even dog-whistle induced) need to be challenged, verified or asserted. Sarcasm might slip an intuitive point past the guards, but it does not make a point.
So now, the question is, "so what if he's gay?" Feel free to answer your own question.
op-ed:
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely right. Phil is acting like one of the Doctors in the famous alien autopsy video. Doing everything to look like he is doing his job, without actually doing his job. And playing very carefully not to extend the foam alien's knee to the point that it is obviously a fake to the viewers.
Miles: > I think it's hilarious that On Lawn believes himself to be the intellectual equal of
ReplyDeleteI wonder where I asserted that... :)
Actually, it isn't a matter of being an intellectual, or even an intellectual's equal. That is a meaningless contest, and as an assertion is always a fallacy.
As it so happens we've noted often where Dale is quite often wrong, and fails to make a reasonable point. Happens to the best of them, I guess. Besides, not even the supposed super-intellect of Dale can make neutering marriage the right thing to do. The best he can manage is to make it seem harmless, through a few contradictions and cunning use of amphibology.
That is no commentary on his intellectual capacity, just look what position he was given to work with.
Miles: > "what about a combination padlock?"
ReplyDeleteI can see why you want Carpenter to do the arguing and thinking for you.
Marty is discussing a concept of complementary binaries, where two items form a unit of functionality.
I think the existence of a combination lock is an example that not everything is complementary binaries, but Marty didn't assert that everything was. So it isn't a contradiction of the uselessness of a two keys or two keyed padlocks posing as the same as a lock and key.
Marriage isn't analogous to a combination lock either, unless you want to argue that a single-person should be considered a marriage.
miles: How about trying to articulate a coherent argument of your own, On Lawn, instead of setting yourself up as arbiter of the soundness of others' positions?
ReplyDeleteDid you have "a coherent argument of your own" to articulate, or are you just here to arbitrate "the soundness of others' positions?" That's actually a pretty good question for Phil who has stated outright that he is here to arbitrate "the soundness of others' positions."
At the very least, quit accusing others of hubris; that is the best example of the pot calling the kettle black...
In your humble opinion, that is.
...that I have ever seen.
You really need to get out more.
elicit
ReplyDeleteMiles misses the forest for the trees, of course. Yawn.
ReplyDeleteA combination is just an incoherent set of numbers. A combination lock is a useless hunk of metal. Together, they form a uniquely powerful device.
Next?
"uniquely"? Please explain what you mean by that, Marty.
ReplyDeletePlease see original comment. Locks and keys are meaningless by themselves, or segregated with their own kind.
ReplyDeleteAnyway I wouldn't read too much into my use of the term "uniquely". The point remains the same: male, female, family, kinship, and marriage ALL lose their meanings when you remove the importance of the potent combination of man and woman.
ReplyDeleteYou either get that, or you don't.
So you were just dressing your comment up a little? What portion of your average comment is meaningless, would you say?
ReplyDeleteOn Lawn,
ReplyDeletecan an assertion be fallacious? Do you even know what "fallacy" means? Thank you for illustrating my point.
Op-Ed,
ReplyDeleteI think it's sweet how you're always jumping into the fray to defend On Lawn's honor. Reminds me of Sarah and Trig Palin.
On Lawn,
ReplyDeletecan an assertion be fallacious?
More so then sentences should be started in lower-case letters :)
Do you even know what "fallacy" means?
Apparently you do not, if you believe an assertion cannot be fallacious.
M-W.com reports that fallacy means, "a false or mistaken idea". An assertion can be a false or mistaken idea.
Relying on one's own intellect or another's is simply hubris, and to me is always a fallacy.
Speaking of which,
I think it's sweet how you're always jumping into the fray to defend On Lawn's honor.
Don't blame me for the problems in your own argument. I'm not the one who's hid behind the skirts of another's intellect, as you did with Carpenter.
However, if I did need to defend my honor, no one better that I've seen then Op-Ed to do it. But trust me, Op-Ed doesn't defend or attack people, he only defends arguments.
But don't let me end this comment without pointing out how over-sold you are on your own abilities here. I've seen no reason to worry about my honor, especially not from your writings.
Thank you for illustrating my point.
Was your point that you are often wrong in the points you make? Because you illustrated that point very clearly.
If not, please let us know what your point really is. Just between you and me I don't think any other point it is coming across here :)
Miles: > So you were just dressing your comment up a little? What portion of your average comment is meaningless, would you say?
ReplyDeleteI take from this assertion that you feel his use was "meaningless" or just "dressing up". Because Marty certainly didn't call his own language anything like "meaningless" or "dressing up".
Marty cautioned not to "read too much into my use of the term 'uniquely'", which is a valid caution.
When I read it, I immediately understood that there are many aspects for which a key and lock are unique, even among locks. Yet, reading into it too much one can go on a tangent by how they divide and categorize those characteristics.
Note: I'm not coming to Marty's aid, I'm coming to yours since you seem to have the reading comprehension issue.
I mentioned before,
"Marty is discussing a concept of complementary binaries, where two items form a unit of functionality.
"I think the existence of a combination lock is an example that not everything is complementary binaries, but Marty didn't assert that everything was. So it isn't a contradiction of the uselessness of a two keys or two keyed padlocks posing as the same as a lock and key.
"Marriage isn't analogous to a combination lock either, unless you want to argue that a single-person should be considered a marriage."
A key can act like a screwdriver, or many other tools. A lock can act like a hammer, or any number of other tools. Together only between those two do they have a unique purpose, even among other locks and keys. And that is unique among locks, even combination locks.
Now, On Lawn. Do I need to remind you of the difference between "then" and "than" again? You really struggle with that, don't you?
ReplyDeleteOh, wait, I forgot: you routinely embed errors in your writing, as TRAPS for the easily distracted. Two steps ahead, as usual, On Lawn. So impressive.
Mr Stone, your presence is always welcome here :)
ReplyDeleteyou routinely embed errors in your writing, as TRAPS for the easily distracted.
It is more like I don't proof-read every comment I make for time's sake. I could, but then I'd miss out on the opportunity to catch people like yourself who are looking for excuses to do something other then argue the matter at hand.
You might also remember my stance about intellect vs reality, or people vs the arguments they make from that discussion as well :)
So go ahead, you have the same opportunity here as you did there. You can argue the points of the discussion, or you can try to make it about people. You won't get any further here in discussing about people then you did over at This is Marriage.
Poor On Lawn. You did it again in your most recent post. Twice.
ReplyDeleteAt least you now admit that you lied before when you claimed that you were baiting me with intentional errors.
miles: I think it's sweet how you're always jumping into the fray...
ReplyDelete"Always?" Please explain what you mean by that, miles.
Don't you recognize me, Op-Ed?
ReplyDeleteI'm still waiting for you to explain how allowing gay couples to marry would lead to more children being raised without a mother of a father. Support that claim or abandon it.
miles: I'm still waiting for you to explain how allowing gay couples to marry would lead to more children being raised without a mother of a father.
ReplyDeleteAs I already have. But since you are here, feel free to look around the blog and see it for yourself. You'll be waiting an awfully long time if you're hoping I'll cure you of your deafness.
Support that claim or abandon it.
You're the only who abandoned anything, Stone. You left many questions abandoned, Stone.
miles: I'm still waiting for you to explain how allowing gay couples to marry would lead to more children being raised without a mother of a father.
ReplyDeleteOops! The spelling and grammer nanny isn't so perfect himself. Who would have known?
Still sticking to that same tactic, I see. I expected no less from you, Op-Ed. What a joke.
ReplyDeleteI'll open it up, then: Anyone else on here care to explain how allowing gay couples to marry will lead to more children being raised without a mother or a father?
My question first, Stone.
ReplyDeleteR.K. is right. I clearly don't know how to spell "or."
ReplyDeleteOf grammer, apparently.
ReplyDeleteMiles, are you for same-sex "married" couples adopting or aren't you? Are you for them being given custody of children they had in previous opposite-sex marriages (and cutting off contact with the other parent if they wish), or aren't you? Is it your contention that allowing same-sex couples to call their relationship "marriage" will not increase this number at all?
ReplyDeleteOr are you confusing the statement that "more children will be raised without a mother or a father" with "more children will be raised with neither a mother nor a father". In other words, is this more grammar play? Should we say "more children will be raised either without a mother or without a father?" just to be perfectly grammatical so you can't avoid the question yourself?
You did it again in your most recent post.
ReplyDeleteOh? What makes you think I did that rather then not? ;)
What, baiting you? No... you'd easily detect that I'm sure.
You know, all this preoccupation of Miles with our grammar and spelling reminds me of another great argument against same-sex marriage.
ReplyDeleteThe ending Of Some Like It Hot won't even be funny anymore.
(Actually, this is the tip of a much more serious argument, one which Lee Harris touches at and I intend to explore at a later time).