@DominicX, _“The difference is that physicists and chemists are usually not studying subjects with social and moral associations. It’s hard to have a social or moral agenda and bias when studying chemical reactions or gravitational properties of rolling objects…
Wrong. I gave you an example already of genetic studies. Twin studies have received a number of criticisms including self-selection bias where homosexuals with gay siblings are more likely to volunteer for studies.
@DominicX, “Let’s examine the first link. Here’s a sentence from that link: “That is, they simply do not fit the minimum necessary condition for a marriage to exist—namely, the union of a man and a woman.” So you’re telling me that the scientific method was used to determine the definition of message? Sorry, but this is social and moral, not scientific. There is no scientific aspect of marriage. Marriage is a social construct. The first link is not scientific in any way. You’re trying to eliminate the social and moral aspect of homosexuality. You’re trying to act like opposition to homosexuality comes from scientific fact, scientific fact that proves that it’s wrong. This is faulty to begin with science doesn’t deal with “wrong” in a moral sense. Science is not going to tell you that a same-sex attraction is wrong; it doesn’t answer questions like that. The other links that argue that same-sex marriage is detrimental to children, all they do is claim that facts are not widely available. That doesn’t prove anything. The other claims draw on stereotypes (gay men are more promiscuous and thus would cheat on each other at higher rates). Again, how can you can prove the negative effects of gay marriage without observing gay marriage? If gay marriage isn’t even allowed, then there are no observations to be made. The first link demonstrates its biases and false assumptions quite well. The first link establishes the fact that marriage has to be associated with procreation and that there is “no reason” to allow marriage between people who can’t procreate naturally. Why? No reason is ever provided for that. We are just supposed to accept the fact that marriage must be tied to procreation, but there is no reason given. It also makes the claim that homosexual marriages damage heterosexual marriages because it causes straight people to turn gay and become enticed by homosexual marriages. The explanation does not even entertain the idea that a person in that heterosexual marriage was LIVING A LIE and with the allowing of same sex marriages, felt compelled to reveal their true homosexual nature and pursue a homosexual relationship. The part about homosexuals having more mental health problems, that’s just wonderful. Completely tasteless and tactless. Homosexuals have higher rates of depression and suicide because they are MARGINALIZED BY SOCIETY. They have internal religious conflicts, conflicts with their parents because their parents and family reject them. Homosexual kids are kicked out by their parents, mocked by their peers, no wonder they commit suicide. That passage almost seemed to be mocking the concept of depression and suicide in homosexuals.I could go on and on, but it’s extremely long. If you have something you want me to disprove, go ahead and highlight it for me. That article is extremely flawed in many many ways. Are you claiming that you have actually read every page that you have linked to? Some of the links don’t even go anywhere. There are hundreds of thousands of words contained in those links. Don’t chew me out for not having the time to read every word. I doubt you have either.”
Look what you just did. You quoted the prologue and applied it to the entire website. Are you kidding me? The devil is in the details! The details! The information and the people/sources used are under the explanations. This is the same thing @PNL tried against me without looking at footnotes. If you actually would look and read, you would see the backings. For example, “So—what IS marriage, then? Anthropologist Kingsley Davis has said, “The unique trait of what is commonly called marriage is social recognition and approval… of a couple’s engaging in sexual intercourse and bearing and rearing children.” Marriage scholar Maggie Gallagher says that “marriage across societies is a public sexual union that creates kinship obligations and sharing of resources between men, women, and the children their sexual union may produce.” Canadian scholar Margaret A. Somerville says, “Through marriage our society marks out the relationship of two people who will together transmit human life to the next generation and nurture and protect that life.“Another Canadian scholar, Paul Nathanson (who is himself a homosexual), has said, “Because heterosexuality is directly related to both reproduction and survival, ... every human societ[y] has had to promote it actively . ... Heterosexuality is always fostered by a cultural norm” that limits marriage to unions of men and women. He adds that people “are wrong in assuming that any society can do without it.” [emphasis in original]” Do you notice the reference to the scholars who conduct the studies? Furthermore, something you seemed to have misunderstood. For both the physical and the social sciences, the underlying logic of the scientific method is the same: truth is established empirically, and empirical method is established in the practices of the community. That which is true is also real, but reality is broader than truth, by virtue of Maxim, A person takes it that things are as they seem unless he/she has reason to think otherwise. The differences between the two communities, which call for a broader view of what is empirical and what constitutes an explanation in the social sciences, come from two main sources: 1. The presence of subject matter—persons—that feature both free will and private experience, and 2. A greater diversity of sub-communities, calling for more negotiation to bring differing real worlds into agreement. Also, the sources are linked to scientific studies which used the scientific method. How quickly you dismissed all the prestige PHD scholars within the social science community when you’re neither one. All because they seem “biased”. There is no point in arguing with you fore the fact that you just attempt to manipulate everything presented and brushing it off with a few simple words.
Consider this, If for example you don’t approve of what X does, while everyone else does approve. Who makes more sense? One individual or the many? Now, apply this to the homosexual dilemma. Anyone who doesn’t accept homosexuality as an equal is considered a fearful, homophobic, religious, ignorant, coward by your communities. However, your community is very small in size when compared to the rest of the world. If billions of people are not approving it, while a few million of you want it approved, who makes more sense? Do you know what measurements are used when diagnosing someone that doesn’t have physical abnormalities? It’s based on social norms. For example, a person is labeled insane when he/she behaves in what is considered not normal by society. This is how the psychiatric, psychological, etc…other groups work. Unless of course there is a physical abnormalities, but it isn’t clear if homosexuality is genetic.
@stranger_in_a_strange_land, ”@DominicX I’ve made my reply; I no longer has any desire to butt heads with irrational and anti-rational opponents whose ultimate argument is some religious book. Their “scientific” arguments are based on publications of groups that are little more than thinly disguised propaganda mills; similar to the “creation science” horse shit. True science embraces the scientific method, which requires rigorous verification of observations and accepts the possibility that ones conclusions may be wrong. These organizations do neither, serving only as a respectable-looking “front” for right-wing evangelicals.”
Seems like you’re the [removed by Fluther] by giving this irrational and anti-rational reply @stranger_in_a_strange_land, ”People fear things they don’t understand. Other people take advantage of that fear to build up their own power.” which comes out of your personal distastes in justifying your homosexuality. Could you make a more broader statement then that? Who’s these “people” and “other people”. How conveniently you managed to skip all the specifics. Do you have any credible data to back up these absurdities? In regards to the rest of your rant, refer to the reply I gave @DominicX.
@augustlan, ”@DominicX I’m back here, applauding you. I just don’t have the energy to deal with anyone who is not interested in rational debate. No matter what you (or I) say, this individual will simply cover his ears and say “Lalalala I can’t hear you”. I’m proud of you, though!”
Interesting, was it you who said? “@augustlan [mod says] Let’s stop making this personal, folks. Please remember to disagree without being disagreeable.” Yet, you’re going against your own principles (site guidelines), by not moderating those that do take it personal as @stranger_in_a_strange_land, clearly displayed, yourself including. You can also refer to previous reply. Argue points rather then dismiss it as irrational.
Composing members:
0
Composing members:
0
