The common pro-gay-marriage argument is "Banning homosexuality or limiting the rights of homosexuals is basically discriminating groups of people for who they are." (to quote Redundant) Is this a logical argument?
The main assertion here is that it is wrong to discriminate between people based on who they are.
Of course, we can all agree that discrimination is fine, for example we put criminals in jail, can we apply the same argument to jailed criminals? Well, Redundant specifically says "Homosexuals do not harm others by being who they are" - that is, they aren't an intrinsic threat. Jailed criminals are assumably a threat in some way, maybe they didn't pay parking fines, maybe they abused their children, maybe they were jailed for insider trading. These are things that we have recognise as wrong. But why do criminals do these criminal things?
Modern theory indicates that biology and social factors both play a role to some degree.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/20/ar...anted=all&_r=0
http://www.aic.gov.au/media_library/...f/tandi263.pdf
I won't bore you with spammed links, but there is a general consensus that you can have a genetic disposition to being a criminal, but that social factors (whether economic, geographic, your family, your community, etc) are important too.
So ignoring the "do not harm others" clause, we say that some people are criminals in the same way that some people are homosexuals? Is it right to limit their rights?
Currently sexuality is seen as a product of biological, hormonal and social factors. So are mental illness or genetic disorders? Are we wrong to give them drugs, treatment, maybe even isolation and special treatment?
If we are to accept the argument that "Banning homosexuality or limiting the rights of homosexuals is basically discriminating groups of people for who they are." should we accept it for all other similar situations?
Why is it OK to discriminate if someone has caused harm to others (or their property, more commonly), but not if they have not? Do homosexuals really not cause harm to others? Considering the constant unrest that has been caused in many countries as a result of their collective actions (aka not caused intrinsicly by their existence, but because of their political actions or otherwise), is it a fair assessment to say they do not cause harm?
The main assertion here is that it is wrong to discriminate between people based on who they are.
Of course, we can all agree that discrimination is fine, for example we put criminals in jail, can we apply the same argument to jailed criminals? Well, Redundant specifically says "Homosexuals do not harm others by being who they are" - that is, they aren't an intrinsic threat. Jailed criminals are assumably a threat in some way, maybe they didn't pay parking fines, maybe they abused their children, maybe they were jailed for insider trading. These are things that we have recognise as wrong. But why do criminals do these criminal things?
Modern theory indicates that biology and social factors both play a role to some degree.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/20/ar...anted=all&_r=0
http://www.aic.gov.au/media_library/...f/tandi263.pdf
I won't bore you with spammed links, but there is a general consensus that you can have a genetic disposition to being a criminal, but that social factors (whether economic, geographic, your family, your community, etc) are important too.
So ignoring the "do not harm others" clause, we say that some people are criminals in the same way that some people are homosexuals? Is it right to limit their rights?
Currently sexuality is seen as a product of biological, hormonal and social factors. So are mental illness or genetic disorders? Are we wrong to give them drugs, treatment, maybe even isolation and special treatment?
If we are to accept the argument that "Banning homosexuality or limiting the rights of homosexuals is basically discriminating groups of people for who they are." should we accept it for all other similar situations?
Why is it OK to discriminate if someone has caused harm to others (or their property, more commonly), but not if they have not? Do homosexuals really not cause harm to others? Considering the constant unrest that has been caused in many countries as a result of their collective actions (aka not caused intrinsicly by their existence, but because of their political actions or otherwise), is it a fair assessment to say they do not cause harm?
<Faint> the rules have been stated quite clearly 3 times now from high staff
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
The common pro-gay-marriage argument is "Banning homosexuality or limiting the rights of homosexuals is basically discriminating groups of people for who they are." (to quote Redundant) Is this a logical argument?
The main assertion here is that it is wrong to discriminate between people based on who they are.
Of course, we can all agree that discrimination is fine, for example we put criminals in jail, can we apply the same argument to jailed criminals? Well, Redundant specifically says "Homosexuals do not harm others by being who they are" - that is, they aren't an intrinsic threat. Jailed criminals are assumably a threat in some way, maybe they didn't pay parking fines, maybe they abused their children, maybe they were jailed for insider trading. These are things that we have recognise as wrong. But why do criminals do these criminal things?
Modern theory indicates that biology and social factors both play a role to some degree.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/20/ar...anted=all&_r=0
http://www.aic.gov.au/media_library/...f/tandi263.pdf
I won't bore you with spammed links, but there is a general consensus that you can have a genetic disposition to being a criminal, but that social factors (whether economic, geographic, your family, your community, etc) are important too.
So ignoring the "do not harm others" clause, we say that some people are criminals in the same way that some people are homosexuals? Is it right to limit their rights?
Currently sexuality is seen as a product of biological, hormonal and social factors. So are mental illness or genetic disorders? Are we wrong to give them drugs, treatment, maybe even isolation and special treatment?
If we are to accept the argument that "Banning homosexuality or limiting the rights of homosexuals is basically discriminating groups of people for who they are." should we accept it for all other similar situations?
Why is it OK to discriminate if someone has caused harm to others (or their property, more commonly), but not if they have not? Do homosexuals really not cause harm to others? Considering the constant unrest that has been caused in many countries as a result of their collective actions (aka not caused intrinsicly by their existence, but because of their political actions or otherwise), is it a fair assessment to say they do not cause harm?
You're asking questions that you leave unanswered. Don't step abstractly around the point you're trying to make, come out and say it. If you truly believe what you're saying is correct and, as you mention later, we'll look pretty stupid in 40 years, then get the last laugh by saying explicilty what you're hinting at.
I'm going to assume you're against gay marriage, possibly trolling, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and afford a hopefully reasonable retort.
The major weakness of your implied argument is whether homosexuality causes harm. Your only example to support that it is the political unrest that the gay rights movement has caused in several countries. The problem with this assertion is that it's assuming they would be harmful by default and cause unrest anyways. Would that be true? Hard to say, as homosexuality in the modern era has existed almost solely in a hostile environment, with threat of ostracism, both socially and economically, and death. And in such an environment, discontent and unrest is not uncommon amongst any group. So it would be rather unfair, and illogical, to assume that homosexuality is harmful solely based on a revolt against the social order.
Bringing criminality into this discussion, and saying why do we punish criminality but shouldn't punish homosexuality if they are both genetically linked is a red herring at it's finest. That being said, I'll take it on briefly before never touching it again, as it's irrelevant. Criminality, by definition, is conflicting and detrimental to society. Homosexuality was once synonymous with criminality, but that was based on religious views to sodomy. In a modern take, there is nothing inherently conflicting about homosexuality with society, other than the current pursuit of rights. Criminality is still conflicting with society. There are not enough similarities between homosexuality and criminality's influence on society to use them as suitable parallels for the sake of this argument.
Lastly, another red herring that I will address only once, we treat mental disorders because, in the majority of situations, they are detrimental to and/or unwanted by the afflicted. The vast majority of people with mental disorders are those with anxiety and depression, and a near entirety do not want to have those disorders. The relatively few people with more difficult disorders like schizophrenia or dementia often lack the cognitive capabilities to realize their situation, but the disorder is actively detrimental to their well-being, often robbing them of their abilities to care for themselves. The similarities between homosexuality and mental disorders stop at genetic disposition. The only cases where homosexuality was unwanted was in response to outside pressure or rejection. And homosexuality is not detrimental to a person's well-being.
nyan :3
Youtube Channel i sometimes post videos of other games
Youtube Channel i sometimes post videos of other games
Originally Posted by Oracle
You're asking questions that you leave unanswered. Don't step abstractly around the point you're trying to make, come out and say it. If you truly believe what you're saying is correct and, as you mention later, we'll look pretty stupid in 40 years, then get the last laugh by saying explicilty what you're hinting at.
Sure, my point is that the argument is weak and arbitrary. It asserts that normalization is the future and so we should accept it so we don't look stupid. It makes no attempt to explain why people should jump on the bandwagon, simply that we should if we aren't stupid! Is this really a valid argument? We should do X for fear of looking stupid?
This "logic" can be applied to everything and anything. I won't accept it.
Originally Posted by Oracle
I'm going to assume you're against gay marriage, possibly trolling, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and afford a hopefully reasonable retort.
You can assume I'm here to challenge people's arguments and make sure they are consistent and logical.
If it makes it easier for you, feel free to assume whatever you want. If your assumption causes problems I'll challenge it in the future and we can discuss it further.
Originally Posted by Oracle
The major weakness of your implied argument is whether homosexuality causes harm. Your only example to support that it is the political unrest that the gay rights movement has caused in several countries. The problem with this assertion is that it's assuming they would be harmful by default and cause unrest anyways. Would that be true? Hard to say, as homosexuality in the modern era has existed almost solely in a hostile environment, with threat of ostracism, both socially and economically, and death. And in such an environment, discontent and unrest is not uncommon amongst any group. So it would be rather unfair, and illogical, to assume that homosexuality is harmful solely based on a revolt against the social order.
I don't think I implied such a thing, I just challenged the assertion that it was harmless. Here is my reply to RedPanda who made the same point (albeit not as well):
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
I'm just challenging the assertion that homosexuality is harmless. If we were to tally up the good and bad aspects, would we really come up with a net positive impact? I find it somewhat hard to believe, there's very rarely any discussion about the positive aspects of having a society where homosexuality is normalized, but there are often very specific complaints from people about why they dislike homosexuality.
Originally Posted by Oracle
Bringing criminality into this discussion, and saying why do we punish criminality but shouldn't punish homosexuality if they are both genetically linked is a red herring at it's finest. That being said, I'll take it on briefly before never touching it again, as it's irrelevant. Criminality, by definition, is conflicting and detrimental to society. Homosexuality was once synonymous with criminality, but that was based on religious views to sodomy. In a modern take, there is nothing inherently conflicting about homosexuality with society, other than the current pursuit of rights. Criminality is still conflicting with society. There are not enough similarities between homosexuality and criminality's influence on society to use them as suitable parallels for the sake of this argument.
I think you missed the point. Both homosexuality and criminality are essentially determined by the same things (biology, hormones, social factors). Your attack seems to be specifically against drawing any parallel. Although I think it's fine to draw this parallel, you can replace "criminality" with anything that is determined by biology/hormones/social factors. For example, obesity, mental illness, etc.
The point was to illustrate that the same argument can be applied to a wide range of things, and so we should decide whether it's a good argument or not: "Banning X or limiting the rights of X is basically discriminating groups of people for who they are." where X is something that is determined by biology/hormones/social factors. Is it a good argument or not? Is it an argument that can ONLY be applied to homosexuality, or is it a universal argument?
You say no, it's not universal, because criminals may be criminals, but they are detrimental. There's also the second cause about harm though, so I think that filters out criminals of most kinds anyway.
Originally Posted by Oracle
Lastly, another red herring that I will address only once, we treat mental disorders because, in the majority of situations, they are detrimental to and/or unwanted by the afflicted. The vast majority of people with mental disorders are those with anxiety and depression, and a near entirety do not want to have those disorders. The relatively few people with more difficult disorders like schizophrenia or dementia often lack the cognitive capabilities to realize their situation, but the disorder is actively detrimental to their well-being, often robbing them of their abilities to care for themselves. The similarities between homosexuality and mental disorders stop at genetic disposition. The only cases where homosexuality was unwanted was in response to outside pressure or rejection. And homosexuality is not detrimental to a person's well-being.
You make some fairly wild claims: "The only cases where homosexuality was unwanted was in response to outside pressure or rejection.". Do you have a particular study that shows this?
Also again it seems to come down to "is it detrimental", which has not particularly been discussed in the case of homosexuality, and in the broader LGBTQIA+++ sense (eg MPD or dysphoria are seen as "normal" and acceptable despite being detrimental). Should we deny normalization of transexuals or otherkin or multiple systems?
-----
Originally Posted by Redundant
The logic behind my argument is the default position that all things should be legal until sufficient reasons are found to ban them, not the other way around.
If you disagree with that we disagree on a fundamental level.
No, we agree on that point.
Originally Posted by Redundant
Comparing homosexuality with criminality is an insult. Ignoring “do not harm others” clause makes no sense because it is the reason why those things cannot be compared.
How exactly is it an insult? You know I'm not saying homosexuals are criminals, right? It's just a parallel. You wouldn't be insulted by driving past a sewage treatment plant, would you?
I did not ignore that clause, read my post.
Last edited by ImmortalPig; Feb 16, 2015 at 05:39 PM.
Reason: <24 hour edit/bump
<Faint> the rules have been stated quite clearly 3 times now from high staff
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
The common pro-gay-marriage argument is "Banning homosexuality or limiting the rights of homosexuals is basically discriminating groups of people for who they are." (to quote Redundant) Is this a logical argument?
The main assertion here is that it is wrong to discriminate between people based on who they are.
The logic behind my argument is the default position that all things should be legal until sufficient reasons are found to ban them, not the other way around.
If you disagree with that we disagree on a fundamental level.
Comparing homosexuality with criminality is an insult. Ignoring “do not harm others” clause makes no sense because it is the reason why those things cannot be compared.
