Gay Marriage split

[_Rollo Tomasi]

You are the one who proffered the argument that homosexuals can't marry because they "can only 'have' children after others have had them."

That's never been my argument. My argument is that they cannot marry, in any normative senses, because they are homosexuals, and that state of affairs is utterly incongruent with both the purpose and nature of marriage.

BS.

Of course, the same applies for many heterosexuals who are barren and can't have children, and adopt. Face it, Droop, asserting the "but they can't have children!" tripe and then trying to only apply it to homosexuals (and not to the innumerable heterosexuals who can't have children), is simply absurd. You're going to have to find a better argument to justify your bigotry.

Typical liberal, just trying to be popular with himself in the mirror. Is your self anointed sense of moral superiority assuaged now?

This has nothing to do with bigotry and everything to do with principle.

You've always been bigoted toward homosexuals (at least since you've posted on this bb). There is no principle here other than basic, fundamental civil rights to which we are all entitled.

[_EAllusion]

You're sophistry has never worked on me E, and it never will. There is far more to Dick's story than you want to let on. The larger theme of that story is the limitless reach of human hubris unaccustomed to moral considerations and the question of whether or not just because something is technologically feasible, in this case, the creation of artificial humans, it is ethically appropriate.

The question, "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" has a specific meaning within the context of that book. Humans dream of owning animals because almost all animals have vanished. They are status symbols. Those who cannot afford them buy electric equivalents and care for them as if they were real. The character is wondering whether androids would want electric animals to care for. Without giving the story away, that question is answered later on in the book. The question is a way of expressing his theme that empathy is an essential human trait. Recommending one ask oneself "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" when contemplating artificial fertalilization for homosexuals (or heterosexuals) is bizarre and smacks of someone trying to sound sophisticated while spouting nonsense.

My reference to Gilder was not his views of homosexuality. If you will read the post again, you will see its reference was to the "taming of men" within traditional western culture marriage is a pivotal element in accomplishing.

You are aware that he talks about his "taming of men" theory with respect to homosexuality and marriage, right? I mean, you are the one recommending him, not me. I asked you to share those arguments, especially when it comes to homosexuality. If you want to avoid that, that's your perogative.

[_Droopy]

You are aware that he talks about his "taming of men" theory with respect to homosexuality and marriage, right? I mean, you are the one recommending him, not me. I asked you to share those arguments, especially when it comes to homosexuality. If you want to avoid that, that's your perogative.

In Wealth and Poverty and Sexual Suicide, the theme is the breakdown and destruction of traditional gender roles by radical feminism, and the the dislodgement of modern men from civilizing domestic attitudes and responsibilities of marriage and child rearing. The "playboy" womanizer and the generation of young barbarians we have created who do not know how to properly interact with a female unless it involves or leads to sexual activity, has been the result.

As to the electric sheep, you may have the plot point correct, but as usual E, your analysis always ceases as soon as your intellectual training wheels are removed. The question, "do androids dream of electric sheep" is really asking, "what are they?" or, from the android's own perspective, "what, or who, am I?" This is the same ultimate question Rutgar Hauer's replicant character was asking himself in the film adaptation of the book. Man created androids, fully human in appearance, and with what appeared to them to be fully human feelings, emotions, and memories of childhood. When the androids realized that they only had ten years to live, and their memories were fictions, they experienced deep psychological and emotional trauma. And, like other Frankensteins before them, they turned upon their creators.

The question then is, did man (not God) have the right to create (arrogating to himself the power and prerogatives of God) beings like himself, with all of the capacity to experience feelings, emotions, and an awareness of self, to be no more than functional objects, or tools, useful for work, pleasure, and war? If you can engage that question at a deep philosophical level, then you can see that the electric sheep are symbols of the ultimate question of just what it means to exist as a sentient, self aware being. Is it right for humans to make other, artificial humans to use in this manner? Perhaps if they were un-self aware and zombie-like, having no capacity to ask questions regarding their own existence. But the androids could fall in love, feel hate, and ask, who am I? What do I mean? That's the deeper meaning of the story, and why its relevant to embryonic stem cell research (a dead issue scientifically anyway), and human cloning.








[i[/i]

[_Droopy]

You are the one who proffered the argument that homosexuals can't marry because they "can only 'have' children after others have had them."

That's never been my argument. My argument is that they cannot marry, in any normative senses, because they are homosexuals, and that state of affairs is utterly incongruent with both the purpose and nature of marriage.

BS.

Of course, the same applies for many heterosexuals who are barren and can't have children, and adopt. Face it, Droop, asserting the "but they can't have children!" tripe and then trying to only apply it to homosexuals (and not to the innumerable heterosexuals who can't have children), is simply absurd. You're going to have to find a better argument to justify your bigotry.

Typical liberal, just trying to be popular with himself in the mirror. Is your self anointed sense of moral superiority assuaged now?

This has nothing to do with bigotry and everything to do with principle.

You've always been bigoted toward homosexuals (at least since you've posted on this bb). There is no principle here other than basic, fundamental civil rights to which we are all entitled.

Of course. To a leftist, all moral constraints and boundary conditions are "BS." because they impose limits upon the all consuming, unfettered autonomous self around which all the universe bows and pays homage.

The scriptures call this "wickedness".

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Of course. To a leftist, all moral constraints and boundary conditions are "BS." because they impose limits upon the all consuming, unfettered autonomous self around which all the universe bows and pays homage.

The scriptures call this "wickedness".

In the context of constitutional and rule of law, it's called "freedom."

[_EAllusion]

In Wealth and Poverty and Sexual Suicide, the theme is the breakdown and destruction of traditional gender roles by radical feminism, and the the dislodgement of modern men from civilizing domestic attitudes and responsibilities of marriage and child rearing. The "playboy" womanizer and the generation of young barbarians we have created who do not know how to properly interact with a female unless it involves or leads to sexual activity, has been the result.

That's not an argument. It's a summary.

As to the electric sheep, you may have the plot point correct, but as usual E, your analysis always ceases as soon as your intellectual training wheels are removed. The question, "do androids dream of electric sheep" is really asking, "what are they?" or, from the android's own perspective, "what, or who, am I?"

It's asking if they feel empathy for other living creatures. That is its deeper meaning. On the surface, the question is a more literal one about whether the robots have dreams, hopes, and desires like humans do. That's what that question means in the context of the book. But even if you say it is asking "what are they?" that still makes no bloody sense as something to ask oneself when contemplating the whether in vitro fertilization is proper. That question is not proposing some acid test that would inform one at all whether certain technological innovations should be pursued, especially not by wondering if those innovations tread on "the perogatives of God." Asserting that the question is really asking whether or not some technology was the purview of God is off the wall.

Do Androids Dream of Electric sheep does explore what it means to be a person and what sorts of rights and responsibilities exist for androids being built, but the question about electric sheep has a more specific meaning within the book.

[_Scottie]

I thought I'd share a post Mighty Curelom (who is in my top 5 favorite posters) posted at MAD.

How is state sanctions for a gay family structure supposed to enable societies to progress? In other words, what social advantages does a gay family structure present over the current situation, which will enable this alleged progress?

Why should society benefit? Embedded in American civic tradition is the notion that certain rights simply exist, that we are "endowed by our creator" with these basic, fundamental human rights. These rights don't need to be earned; they don't need to produce results or provide any societal benefit other than the satisfaction one feels in exercising that right.

One of these rights is the freedom to practice the religion of your choosing. Imagine, for a moment, an unpopular religion. Imagine that adherents of this religion are denied the right to practice that religion. Imagine a government which refuses to grant legitimacy to that religion--that is, in fact, openly hostile to believers of this religion. (None of this should be too difficult to envision, for obvious reasons.)

Now, what would you say to someone who asked, with respect to this 'hypothetical' religion, "what's in it for me? Why should We the People grant legitimacy to this blasphemous, perverted religion?"

The proper response is that no justification is necessary. It's nobody's business what good your religion does for society, or whether it does any good at all. In fact, your religion could even be detrimental to society, and yet you would still have an unquestionable right to practice and believe it.

The real question, then, is not "how does society benefit from gay marriages," but rather "is equality a fundamental right, analogous to the fundamental right to worship freely?" Are we a society dedicated to equal rights, and equal treatment under the law? If freedom of speech in itself is so valuable that even the most vile and hateful speech is protected, is not human equality just as valuable, and just as susceptible to activities potentially detrimental to society?