rcarter2:

You're right that the blind without a drivers license can be rationalized through both "a danger to others", but my actual premise I'm operating under is "what is best for the person". Let's try some examples that don't include harms to others, don't harm the self, yet they still need to do "what is best for the person". 

My previous example of alcoholism would be one. The alcoholic who lives alone and gets smashed in his house every night isn't harming anyone but himself. I would restrict his alcohol purchases. Wasting one's life away through alcohol is not best. The harm done to the self is small in the short run, mainly liver damage, but my focus is that he's an addict. Addiction, regardless of any harms, is disordered and not best for the person.

Lets take something that has no internal or external harms: masturbation. It's gross to talk about, but it fits my example perfectly. If done something like 20 times a week, there are minor hormone issues and probably addiction, but lets assume our person has no problems with it. Actually, lets assume that the associated benefits of sex (exercise, hormone discharge, etc.) are included, so that the person only receives benefits from masturbating. Apart from medical necessity (which is extremely rare in the first place), I'd prescribe against it. It brings benefits after puberty, I don't deny it, but the act itself isn't rational. Masturbation is, essentially, self-intercourse, which at least in our own terminology is self-contradictory. Intercourse is literally "communication between individuals", and only the self is involved. However, apart from language, it's still contradictory. The act of sex must be defined from it's physicality, which is the involvement of sexual organs, releasing of chemicals, generally procreative, and always with a second partner. If there is no second partner, it's asexual, and the human being is not an asexual creature. The act of sex is distorted in order to be made a self action, yet our body still assumes a partner and some chemicals released are simply to help form emotional attachments.

Therefore, sex should be with another because that's human. Masturbation is, therefore, an act inappropriate to human beings, even if it is beneficial.

Utilitarianism, which you seem to be in line with, wouldn't care so much. It is beneficial, therefore go for it. However, that's not wholly rational either. Utilitarianism often has the correct answer, but not in the cases of disorder. If we take Bentham's version, alcoholism or other addiction might be increased if it increases the general happiness of a population. If we take Mill's more refined version, addiction is harm because it affects our ability to receive other pleasures. Poetry is better than drink, and too much drink restricts how you can enjoy those higher quality pleasures. But if we take something like justice and attempt to apply it to a court case, Mill may omit punishment altogether if it would increase the general happiness. That's not really human either; the unjust must rectify the situation. Mill would say the crime should not be committed because it harms others, but the scenario of punishment is a different scenario. Punishing the guy may hurt more than do good, but does it honestly matter? No. It's about principle, and the principle in play is that the unjust must rectify.

rcarter2 : oh cool thats what i was always wondering and if any one can have a ceremony then why does religion play some what of a factor in it? and can they commonwealth marriages and domestic partnership and things of that nature im not real sure what those to things are just have a general understanding of the concept but anyway if they can do that then why cant they just get married in the eyes of the law?

Txgangsta : I don't see masturbation as 'self intercourse'. It is self stimulation. Intercourse is a sexual act between 2 people (as far as mammals are concerned), but masturbation isn't a matter of attempting intercourse. It is 100% just an attempt to achieve the pleasurable feeling of climax as well as experience the release of endorphin. Not an attempt at intercourse. Just stimulation. The whole sexual vs asexual only really applies if you are trying to reproduce. Masturbation is not that attempt. Again, just stimulation, not intercourse. But that is neither here nor there. We clearly just have a difference of opinion. Something like that all boils to opinion. No point in trying to explain that matter any farther as there is no right/wrong side there. Just depends on the person's feelings on it.
The alcoholism still doesn't really apply to being gay. Set aside the fact that that does cause physical and mental harm, as you already stated. That is an addiction. Being gay is not an addiction. And you brought up that addiction is a disorder, but in most cases, addiction is a self inflicted disorder. Unless it was your parent's fault, you are not born an addict.
As for the whole Mill argument brought up, you are talking in pure hypothetical. Bringing up taking away punishment under the law if the general public will be happier is not even remotely a feasible point. The general public would not be happy with that idea. That is the opposite what would make the people happy. Applying an unrealistic hypothetical to a situation that is real and happening right now just to make your own opinion sound better is a poor choice in tactic and can even be seen as insulting. Basically saying that homosexuals being equal citizens is comparable to taking away punishment for criminals.

a-sassy-black-lady : sorry for the double post, but forgot to answer your question there. You asked "why can't they just get married in they eyes of the law?" By asking that question, I think you now understand the point of the frustration. There is really no valid reason aside from religion. The one and only reason why they can't get married under the eyes of the law is because almost all of our elected officials are of some branch of Christianity. Because the general Christian belief is that homosexuality is a sin, they refuse to allow homosexual marriages. Even though this country is founded upon the idea of religious freedom, our elected officials are forcing their religious belief on EVERYONE, whether they are Christians or not.

rcarter2 : separation of church and state?

a-sassy-black-lady : Being completely ignored in this case.

rcarter2 :

The last half of my previous post that was about Mill was simply a critique of "greatest pleasure to greatest people". It wasn't tied to gay marriage except by the greatest of lengths.

As for masturbation, I think we're approaching a disagreement on facts rather than a disagreement on morals. Masturbation is "self simulation" of what? Of intercourse. Internally, the exact same things are happening and we only find differences externally, namely the lack of a second person. Masturbation is certainly not an attempt at reproduction (and I'd laugh so hard if anyone honestly tried that!) but neither is intercourse 99% of the time. The birds and the bees aren't attempting to make babies, they're just following instinct. Couples, married or not, have sex and many times are not thinking about reproduction. They're just having sex. Masturbation is, therefore, an attempt to self-simulate intercourse, which is contrary to our own biology. Basically, the argument I'm attempting to make is "Human beings should act human because they are human", and sex by ourselves is not human. Sure people do it, but its a distortion from what's actually supposed to happen: partnered sex.

Txgangsta : I did not say 'self simulation'. I said sTimulation. There is a big difference in context there.
Sure, sex is very often not with having babies directly in mind. The big difference between sex and masturbation is that one of them is the process of making babies. Whether or not people have sex to have kids, they are doing the exact act that causes reproduction. Masturbation, in it's entirety, is just the attempt to temporarily get a release of endorphin and pleasurable feeling of climax. Nothing more. You say it is against our biology, but I couldn't disagree more. Do you have kids or work with kids, by any chance? Almost every kid goes through a stage where they 'discover' themselves and explore. My wife is a kindergarten teacher, and she has said that there are more times than she bothers to count where she has to stop her kids (surprisingly, more often the girls than the boys) from touching (that is as far of terms I will go into when it comes to kids). If masturbation were against human biology, then why is it that nearly every kid goes through that phase, and don't see a problem with it until their parents tell them that it is immoral? Biology is more than just the reproductive aspect. It includes everything about our anatomy. Part of mammalian biology is to seek out positive stimuli. Biologically, we avoid negative unless it results in a positive outcome, and seek out positive. Stimuli is a broad term that applies to both the physical and psychological. Masturbation triggers pleasurable endorphin in the brain, which the brain typically views as pleasurable. Really, humans are doing exactly what is part of their own biology as we biologically seek out pleasurable stimuli. We are just creatures that have a highly developed brain that starts trying to apply moral codes to every thing we can possibly do. Masturbation is not an 'against biology' issue. It is an 'against moral ' issue. You seem to be applying the term biology completely on reproduction, which is not correct by any means.

rcarter2 :

Ah, I read your post wrong. My bad. My argument would still remain the same, "self-stimulation of what kind?" Sexual stimulation. But I don't think that bothers you so much, at least not as my specific "humans should act like humans" argument.

To recap our debates (there are technically two), I'll make imaginary dialogues. We started with "Who are the victims in homosexuality?"

Tx: They are they're own victims.
Rc: How so?
Tx: The homosexual act is disordered.
Rc: Disordered things are clearly harmful. Homosexuality is not harmful.
Tx: It is not "harmful", but it is still disordered. They are not "hurting" one another, but males should act like males and females should act like females.
Rc: Children do many things naturally, including homosexual acts. The act is, therefore, natural to humans.

Our second debate follows this imaginary dialogue.

Rc: Gay couples should be recognized under the government like straight couples.
Tx: No. Marriage isn't a governmental thing.
Rc: People have the right to have the government recognize their union.
Tx: The government isn't for announcing couples.
Rc: Since they announce straight couples, shouldn't they be fair?
Tx: Maybe, but I'd rather not support the system in any way.

The second one seems done. I think our political views are different, but they don't contradict, they just don't perfectly synthesize. The first one, however, we'll keep going because it's still close enough to be on topic.

Children do many things that, in one sense, we can call natural. The children were not taught how to do X, Y, or Z, and therefore they learned it or knew it "naturally". However, the specific act in question does not depend upon this kind of "natural". Children do many things they should not naturally. They naturally hit/bite, and inflicting undue harm is unnatural. So, if I can mix terminology, Children do many unnatural things naturally. As a rational being, the ignorant child still should act completely rationally based on what kind of thing they are. So yes, children may "touch" naturally, but it just means we're born without perfect order.

Continuing with my previous example, masturbation is, then, disordered. This is not because we don't learn it or know it via natural process, but because of the act itself. Sex is a "joint-venture". Masturbation is a distortion of what we're built for.

Also, reproduction isn't necessarily a part of sex. If I can digress a little, when talking about an action or a substance, we can categorize the parts of them in two ways: essence and accident. What I mean by this is much more clear in an example. Communication essentially involves two or more individuals and signs. Without these things, it isn't communication. Remove two individuals and you're talking to yourself, and isn't communication, but thought (or crazy). If you take away signs, we just have two people in a room. Even telepathy involves talking (the sign) into someone's mind. Accidentally, communication may use audible words, but it doesn't have to. It can use written letters instead. It can be by touch, like Braille.

To relate essence and accident to sex, sex essentially involves two (or more) people and uses the sexual organs. Accidentally, it is reproductive. If reproduction doesn't happen during sex (no conception), it's still sex. Also, reproduction isn't only introduced with sex, in vitro being the most obvious example.

Txgangsta : I think the imaginary dialogue misinterprets what I said. For example, I never implied disordered things are clearly harmful. That is an untrue statement I would never say. I also never included homosexuality in things children do naturally. Homosexuality is not something practiced at least until you begin taking an interest in relationships, not something that is natural for the kindergarten age I used as an example. That was purely about masturbation, nothing else. I know it was just an imaginary dialogue, but it misrepresents things I said.

Yes, children naturally hit, bite, scratch, etc when very young and are taught otherwise. But instinctual purpose of teaching kids not to do those things is not because of morals, but safety. Biting, scratching, hurting inevitably leads to confrontation that puts one in physical risk. When you get older, things will fight back more aggressively in response to such behavior. Teaching them to not do that is a survival teaching. Animals often teach their young not to play too rough with their siblings (and parents) for the safety of their young. The main difference in this case between us and them is that we have developed a high intellect to articulate it into morality than just safety lessons. Homosexuality and masturbation, on the other hand, is purely an intellectually created sense of morality. Because it isn't something that feels natural to the majority, it must be immoral. This is really not an argument on biology. This is an argument on morality. You see the act as immoral, therefore shouldn't be allowed. You are just using the biology thing as an argument, but your real opposition to gay marriage is that you see it as immoral. If biology had anything to do with it, you would have included it in your original arguments.

I never said reproduction was definitely a part of sex. I said that sex is a part of reproduction. That is is biological aspect of reproduction. Masturbation has nothing to do with reproduction. You keep using 'stimulation of sex' rebuttal. But you, yourself said sex is at least a two person act. Masturbation is not about simulating sex. It isn't about in depth connection between two people, and is not about simulating that connection. You keep looking at masturbation as an attempt at sex, but it isn't. You are making masturbation out to be more than it is, which is just forcing a release of temporary pleasurable endorphin and muscle spasms. That is it. It is not about the connection, not about the reproduction, not sex. They are two separate things, both natural. Human articulated sense of morality is the only thing that is deeming it unnatural.

You brought up how sex isn't necessarily a part of reproduction. You brought up how something should not be done if it is against your biology. In vitro is purely a scientific manipulation of biology. If you are unable to get pregnant by the natural means, that is your personal biology. Resorting to in vitro is going against your own personal biology. In the natural world, a woman ovulates once roughly every 30 days. But in vitro takes multiple eggs that would not ovulate all at once, fertilizing as many of them as possible, and putting them back in in hopes that one of them will stick. If anything, in vitro is the absolute opposite of natural. If homosexuality being unnatural is one of your arguments, why is in vitro okay? Regardless, in vitro puts you at risk of going against natural human biology in another way. We are not built to have litters. In vitro greatly risks the odds of having a litter. The more children you have during a pregnancy, the more the risk. At a point, you can't have the babies naturally, and require c-section if you want a chance of survival. In vitro is putting yourself at increased odds of having a pregnancy that has a high risk of fatal complications for either the mother or at least one of the children. Just being homosexual does not. Yet in vitro is okay while homosexuality is immoral and against biology?
Also, if I recall, you are an advocate for life starts at fertilization (technically, life starts at germination because fertilization leads to no life unless germination takes place after fertilization, but that is not the point). When it comes to in vitro, they fertilize many eggs at once. Meaning they start a lot of lives. They don't put in the whole batch at once. They put in a few, and freeze the rest. 2 problems. It is highly expected that only one in the bunch that is put in in a single treatment will make it. So you are creating multiple lives in multiple batches, expecting all but one to die. Reckless endangerment and even manslaughter? If the couple gets pregnant, there is obviously no need for the frozen eggs. So the couple have a choice. Either have the eggs stored frozen, in which they pay monthly fees for storage for as long as they are stored, or they don't pay. If they don't pay, those fertilized eggs are thrown out. Murder? How are you okay with in vitro?
If you do not believe that life begins at fertilization, and I made that assumption, ignore that very last part about in vitro. But the question about in vitro being against biology still applies. If you against in vitro, and only used it as an example for your argument, then that whole last part does not apply to you.

rcarter2: They were imaginary dialogues. I just wanted to show the argument I was giving and your general arguments against. It's not exact because I'd rather not copy-paste 8 posts into one for no reason.

As I thought before, we have a disagreement of fact. I understand human biology to have a sex function, and masturbation as a manipulation of this sex function. You understand masturbation as a different act from sex, and so my comparison of one as a manipulation of another is inherently false. At this point, we're at an impasse. I think it's pretty obvious what's going on in masturbation: self sex. To say otherwise is just bad analysis of the act. Without this comparison available, I think the discussion is done, so lets wrap this up.

Children naturally hit, bite, scratch, etc and are taught otherwise, but can be taught otherwise for a multitude for reasons. Consequentially, as they get older something bigger may hit back. My argument is that, biologically, we are a rational animal. Biting/hitting/whatever is irrational, and therefore against our biology. The child does not have the authority to punish. They don't think like this, but it doesn't make it ok for them.

This statement completely confuses me. "You see the act as immoral, therefore shouldn't be allowed. You are just using the biology thing as an argument, but your real opposition to gay marriage is that you see it as immoral. If biology had anything to do with it, you would have included it in your original arguments."

First, my feelings (or anyone's feelings, for that matter) are not a good basis for morality, and this has never been my argument. To tell me "this is your real argument, and it's wrong" is ad hominem. I'm going to assume that's not what you meant.

If my first argument was not biology, it really doesn't matter. Arguments are either right or wrong, regardless of the order. However, biology is my first argument against homosexual acts. My first posts in this forum are from a year ago (page 10), where I said to allow same sex marriage because joint income on one side and not on the other isn't fair. I've since changed my political opinion because, like then, I think this whole thing is ridiculous. Page 11 introduces homosexual acts, and I state that "same-gender interaction is different from different-gender interaction". I rooted my answer in biology (specifically, gender). I say it again on page 14, even more explicit about how the question must be answered is with the body.

For our specific discussion, when you asked how they are they're own victims, I respond with "male and female" arguments (middle of page 15). Those are necessarily biological arguments. Biology is only way to argue this subject because the discrepancy is biological, male and female.

Finally, in vitro. Unnatural things happen naturally. This is why I don't like to use the word "natural". The female gender is built to bear children. When it won't for reason X, Y, or Z, going around the biological flaw is perfectly fine. I used in vitro as the example because it is reproductive and is not sex. But you're right, I'm not actually pro-in vitro because they fertilize multiple eggs and then toss the ones they don't like. If they just took fertilized one egg and used it, I would have much more approval. Even then, it's still kinda iffy and lots of caution is needed.

Txgangsta : This makes no sense. Marriage is a legal contract. It has nothing to do with your arbitrary concepts of "biological compatibility". A pair entering a marriage have a set of legal benefits and responsibilities, such as the ability to combine assets, hospital visitations, terms of separation, and so on. Marriage is also an arbitrary concept, but it lays out the legal framework for the combination of assets between two or more parties with an assumed addition of romantic affiliation. The biology of sex and gender is not relevant, and I am thoroughly confused as to why you are bringing it up.

Marriage is a basic right guaranteed by countries all over the world. It makes perfect sense to extend it to all those who are capable of exercising it. To deny it to a minority because of outdated prejudices or misguided principles is an injustice.
 

Txgangsta : Yeah, we should wrap this up

I will just clear up the part that confused you. I wasn't saying '"his is your argument, and it's wrong". Sorry I gave that impression. I was just saying that when it comes to your belief, your main reason against homosexuality is that you see is immoral. The biology thing is more of just a tool as an argument point to support your belief. But your base opposition is your view that it is immoral. But throughout our conversation, it was no longer an argument on morality, but biology. And as you stated, we hit an impasse. As you believe that viewing masturbation as self sex as a bad analysis, I feel that ignoring the chemistry part of it is a narrow focused view. But that is neither here or there. Again, I wasn't saying you are wrong. I was just pointing out that this has turned into a pure discussion on biology, when your core view on homosexuality is on a morality, and morality is not something determined by anatomical biology.

But yeah, we have been sandwich posting on the issue. Even though that is more tolerable in the debate forum, I think both of our views can't really go any further without becoming redundant. I think our contributions to this thread have reached the peak for the moment until a new view comes in

It creeps me out but people can do what they want in their own lives as long as its no hurting other people for no good reason.

rcarter2 :

Thank you for a wonderful debate. Civility is an art lost on the internet.

Traduweise :  

I would think that something such as "biological compatibility" is the least arbitrary thing I could choose. My feelings, a book's portrayal of morality, a group's feelings; those things are kinda arbitrary. Biology is about the least arbitrary thing ever, especially when talking about sexuality. Biology is, in fact, the best lens through which this discussion could possibly take place.

"Marriage is a basic right guaranteed by countries all over the world."

What barbarians! "Marriage is also an arbitrary concept". Why is this ridiculousness tolerated? And worse, it's considered a "right"? Such barbarism should not be present in our modern era.

Some time ago whites an blacks could not marry. And when it was ok the world didn't stop the sky didn't fall. So I'm guessing that nothing would happen if gays get married. But it is going to be a hard fight and some will all ways hate them for doing it. So I'm guessing anyone who would get married must be in love.

Txgangsta : "Biological compatibility" is a meaningless catchphrase you've invented for this thread. You have yet to define it much less explain why it is relevant to marriage, which, as I have explained, is a legal contract. You should just go back to saying you oppose same-sex marriage on moral grounds.

Oh, and rights are an arbitrary concept. They have credence because entire nations and national bodies recognize and enforce them. I really don't know what you're trying to say.

Txgangsta : you can say that again i thank you both for the amazing debate thats exactly what i wanted when i started this thread you both gave fantastic information i was never so excited to read before great job guys

Traduweise: 

Well, if you say I just invented a happy catch phrase, I guess you must be correct. It certainly can't possibly be that this is a forum and not a 20 page ethics article. And why are you supporting anything you find to be arbitrary? Build everything on what is real. I build "rights" on the truth that the human being naturally creates a government for one specific reason: human flourishing. Therefore, something like "life" is a right and is not arbitrary.

Txgangsta : Defining your terms is the first step to any conversation, be it in a peer-reviewed journal or a discussion in a chat room.

You think that just because something is arbitrary it can't be supported? No. Something that cannot be logically and coherently argued for should not, in most cases, be supported. Rights are arbitrary. They do not exist in a material sense, only insofar as we justify them. If nobody recognized human rights, human rights would not exist.

Now then. Instead of avoiding my question yet again, why don't you just explain what "biological compatibility" is and why it has any bearing on a legal contract between two people?