|
Post by CountessRachel on Nov 16, 2008 23:27:45 GMT -5
In the words of Jeff Goldblum from Jurassic Park, "Nature always finds a way."
Species of amphibians can mate with one another regardless of sex. Male seahorses give birth to babies. So, just to be on the safe side in future arguments, you should never, ever assume that you know what a higher power intended. Unless this higher power comes to your house every week to review his/her/their/it's plan with you, you have no clue what they intend.
Food for thought...
|
|
asian malaysian
Avatar Kyoshi
Let me hear you say this ship is bananas! B-A-NA-N-A-S!
Posts: 1,308
|
Post by asian malaysian on Nov 17, 2008 4:58:58 GMT -5
I am not a fan of using the rules of nature to dictate an exclusively human social issue given the proven plasticity of human social norms, behaviour and customs. Having said that, Im not about to throw out basic biology just because it isnt politically correct.
|
|
|
Post by Lt. Dan on Nov 17, 2008 8:46:13 GMT -5
I am not a fan of using the rules of nature to dictate an exclusively human social issue given the proven plasticity of human social norms, behaviour and customs. Respectable, but there are too many social norms and behaviors in nature that align with human activities to be discarded altogether.
|
|
asian malaysian
Avatar Kyoshi
Let me hear you say this ship is bananas! B-A-NA-N-A-S!
Posts: 1,308
|
Post by asian malaysian on Nov 17, 2008 14:22:21 GMT -5
^^ Conformity and generality of human behaviour is not an issue. Natural laws by virtue of their defining charcteristics are both self evident and self enforced requiring no further legislation. "Go forth and multiply" is a good example of preaching to the choir. In any case, the explosion of the modern human population and its effect on a formerly prestine natural world has so devastated the balance of the natural order of things that we are now effectively able to determine the course of nature itself. It is no longer (if it ever was) a reliable indication indication of how we ourselves should behave.
|
|
Horyo
RP Admin
All your bending are belong to us.
Posts: 2,572
|
Post by Horyo on Nov 18, 2008 1:25:05 GMT -5
I am not a fan of using the rules of nature to dictate an exclusively human social issue given the proven plasticity of human social norms, behaviour and customs. Having said that, Im not about to throw out basic biology just because it isnt politically correct. As much as I agree with this, it becomes a bit difficult to distinguish between certain behaviors. Though I am now beginning to see that so long as the behavior produces no overall harm to a person, their environment, or general society other than the ill-conceived notions, it really shouldn't stop people from being who they are. I am of the belief that homosexuality is genetically predisposed, so discriminating against them would be the equivalent of discriminating against someone of a certain pigmented skin. The human race now is all for maintaining and perpetuating more of itself, while keeping within the natural limits of its environment. I mean, every animal has had some detrimental effect to the environment, it's just barely noticeable. But when it comes to humans, who have been perfecting the efficiency of this decay, the consequences become a scalar multiple. I also believe that most human social norms are based upon the separation of civility and savagery. This is to say that humans grew some sort of superiority mental-set to think that they are no longer animals, but something more. Naturally, I disagree with this thought, because I believe humans are animals+a sentient, developed brain. And to that last post, as some would reinforce their arguments that "homosexuality is abnormal and adverse to nature and the propagation of the human race" they conveniently ignore that we cannot use nature as an "indication of how we ourselves should behave." So either way, their argument is null and void. I'm not disagreeing with you or anything, I'm just adding along my thoughts.
|
|
|
Post by mike1921 on Nov 18, 2008 6:08:15 GMT -5
I am not a fan of using the rules of nature to dictate an exclusively human social issue given the proven plasticity of human social norms, behaviour and customs. Respectable, but there are too many social norms and behaviors in nature that align with human activities to be discarded altogether. At the moment that doesn't include that couples need to reproduce to be helpful for society. Now if ALL couples stopped reproducing we'd die out in one generation, but I don't think we have to worry about that until more than half the population is gay. That's a fact. Humans are animals, no one needs to prove that. Even most religious people probably agree that humans are technically animals by definition of science Dictionary:animals: multicellular organisms that have a well-defined shape and usually limited growth, can move voluntarily, actively acquire food and digest it internally, and have sensory and nervous systems that allow them to respond rapidly to stimuli Sentience: the ability to feel or perceive subjectively.
|
|
|
Post by Lt. Dan on Nov 18, 2008 7:34:42 GMT -5
It is no longer (if it ever was) a reliable indication indication of how we ourselves should behave. ... and I disagree. Social norms and philosophy don't fully explain our behaviors. You have to use science and it occasionally faithfully ties us back to the animal kingdom. Your argument hints of an elitism that worries natural scientists. When you think you have dominion and knowledge over whatever you desire nature will throw you a curveball. Nature has controls and cycles that we are only partially aware of. Like I've said in CT before: mother nature has the biggest bat, and she always bats last.
|
|
|
Post by CountessRachel on Nov 18, 2008 20:30:31 GMT -5
Though I'm slightly guilty, let's not steer too far from the general topic--Proposition 8.
|
|
asian malaysian
Avatar Kyoshi
Let me hear you say this ship is bananas! B-A-NA-N-A-S!
Posts: 1,308
|
Post by asian malaysian on Nov 18, 2008 23:17:19 GMT -5
^^ Fair enough. The laws of nature argument cant be used to support "prop 8" because the institution of marriage is not one founded in nature but exlusively formed and recognised in certain human societies.
|
|
Horyo
RP Admin
All your bending are belong to us.
Posts: 2,572
|
Post by Horyo on Nov 19, 2008 2:01:38 GMT -5
I guess the essential break down is that it's separating two sets of unions, yea, but there is an undertone that seems to be saying that the heterosexual union is superior.
There really doesn't seem to be any cost for heterosexual couples, had Prop 8 failed. Actually, there is a fiscal impact on local and state governments because now that a particular group can't "marry" they won't be putting forth the money for celebrations etc..
|
|
|
Post by username on Nov 19, 2008 2:57:08 GMT -5
On a related note, Arkansas banned the right of all unmarried couples to adopt children (the campaign revolved primarily around fighting a "homosexual agenda"), despite the fact that there were already three times as many children in need of a home than there were available homes.
ROUND OF APPLAUSE FOR ARKANSAS!
|
|
|
Post by Lt. Dan on Nov 19, 2008 8:42:29 GMT -5
I guess the essential break down is that it's separating two sets of unions, yea, but there is an undertone that seems to be saying that the heterosexual union is superior. Yes. That why there is really an underlying issue here centered around bigotry. When people go to vote on something like proposition 8 are they defining their beliefs in marriage or are they really addressing their stance on homosexuality? This should have never been on the ballot. It's these kind of things that make me weep for humanity. Dear homophobes and religious nuts: take your pathetic cause against people you don't like quietly to your graves and stay out of the way of the rest of us who want the government to address more important issues.
|
|
o8jedi
Jet
Please, call me "o8"
Posts: 364
|
Post by o8jedi on Nov 19, 2008 11:31:06 GMT -5
On a related note, Arkansas banned the right of all unmarried couples to adopt children (the campaign revolved primarily around fighting a "homosexual agenda"), despite the fact that there were already three times as many children in need of a home than there were available homes. ROUND OF APPLAUSE FOR ARKANSAS! Boo! More explantion please.EDIT: Kaneda's comments called for a round of applause for Arkansas. So I booed.
|
|
Horyo
RP Admin
All your bending are belong to us.
Posts: 2,572
|
Post by Horyo on Nov 20, 2008 1:27:10 GMT -5
On a related note, Arkansas banned the right of all unmarried couples to adopt children (the campaign revolved primarily around fighting a "homosexual agenda"), despite the fact that there were already three times as many children in need of a home than there were available homes. ROUND OF APPLAUSE FOR ARKANSAS! And so, those poor children are deprived of any form of family, or a family-centered life all because homosexual families will cause maladies to the children they raise.
|
|
asian malaysian
Avatar Kyoshi
Let me hear you say this ship is bananas! B-A-NA-N-A-S!
Posts: 1,308
|
Post by asian malaysian on Nov 20, 2008 3:53:07 GMT -5
^^ Ah yes! I can already imagine claims of children suffering from pronounced and immediate weakening of the carpal bones upon being adopted by homosexual families.
|
|