California's top court overturns gay marriage ban

[KSig RC]

Why would gay marriage be "not natural" when we have evidence of same-sex husbandry in other mammals?

Or do you mean "not natural" in the sense of "not what I'm used to" or even "not natural for humans"?

If it is either of the latter two, not only is that a vaguely religious sentiment, it is also exactly zero reason for enacting law. Laws or standards that are improper should not be kept simply because of longevity.

[jon1856]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

Why would gay marriage be "not natural" when we have evidence of same-sex husbandry in other mammals?

Or do you mean "not natural" in the sense of "not what I'm used to" or even "not natural for humans"?

If it is either of the latter two, not only is that a vaguely religious sentiment, it is also exactly zero reason for enacting law. Laws or standards that are improper should not be kept simply because of longevity.

Well said-agree.

[nate2512]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

Why would gay marriage be "not natural" when we have evidence of same-sex husbandry in other mammals?

While that does happen, its never normal behavior.


unnatural

1. In violation of a natural law.
2. Inconsistent with an individual pattern or custom.
3. Deviating from a behavioral or social norm
4. Contrived or constrained; artificial
5. In violation of natural feelings

[sigmadiva]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

Why would gay marriage be "not natural" when we have evidence of same-sex husbandry in other mammals?

Or do you mean "not natural" in the sense of "not what I'm used to" or even "not natural for humans"?

If it is either of the latter two, not only is that a vaguely religious sentiment, it is also exactly zero reason for enacting law. Laws or standards that are improper should not be kept simply because of longevity.

Becasue what I consider natural for me, may not be for you and vice versa.......

I am but one person with one voice and one vote. But, I thank you for taking what I say and treating it as the absolute truth.

[Rudey]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

Why would gay marriage be "not natural" when we have evidence of same-sex husbandry in other mammals?

Or do you mean "not natural" in the sense of "not what I'm used to" or even "not natural for humans"?

If it is either of the latter two, not only is that a vaguely religious sentiment, it is also exactly zero reason for enacting law. Laws or standards that are improper should not be kept simply because of longevity.

Sort of like incest in nature? Or like eating your young? Or like being born with two heads?

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by Rudey

Sort of like incest in nature? Or like eating your young? Or like being born with two heads?

Definitely eating the young is quite similar to husbandry.

I've given you a (limited) concession on incest, why keep bringing up stupid strawmen when you could simply fight the battle on, y'know, logical terms?

[nate2512]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

Definitely eating the young is quite similar to husbandry.

Well that's natural for those animals, the argument is that since animals sometimes eat their young, then if humans wanted to as well, that would be natural. It certainly is not, so you cannot compare animal husbandry to support your argument that its natural.

[a.e.B.O.T.]

Originally Posted by nate2512

Well that's natural for those animals, the argument is that since animals sometimes eat their young, then if humans wanted to as well, that would be natural. It certainly is not, so you cannot compare animal husbandry to support your argument that its natural.

Since when is "it certainly is not" a good rebuttal? So, if you are going to say something, explain yourself, instead of JUST telling people what they can and can not compare this to that to. This is the defense of a six year old, and I am not being sarcastic, this is a way a child would rebuttal.

[TexasWSP]

Originally Posted by a.e.B.O.T.

Since when is "it certainly is not" a good rebuttal? So, if you are going to say something, explain yourself, instead of JUST telling people what they can and can not compare this to that to. This is the defense of a six year old, and I am not being sarcastic, this is a way a child would rebuttal.

Did you even read what he wrote? Humans eating their young is "certainly not" natural.

.......or do you disagree with that? Pretty sure he doesn't need to explain that concept.

[a.e.B.O.T.]

Originally Posted by TexasWSP

Did you even read what he wrote? Humans eating their young is "certainly not" natural.

.......or do you disagree with that? Pretty sure he doesn't need to explain that concept.

He was twisting logic, which EVERYONE seems to do in this thread as opposed to talk straight about the topic. As far as his twisted logic goes, I see his point, but I would never make that point...

[nate2512]

Originally Posted by a.e.B.O.T.

Since when is "it certainly is not" a good rebuttal? So, if you are going to say something, explain yourself, instead of JUST telling people what they can and can not compare this to that to. This is the defense of a six year old, and I am not being sarcastic, this is a way a child would rebuttal.

Since "it certainly is not" is tied together with an entire post and doesn't stand on its own.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by nate2512

Well that's natural for those animals, the argument is that since animals sometimes eat their young, then if humans wanted to as well, that would be natural. It certainly is not, so you cannot compare animal husbandry to support your argument that its natural.

You're not really following the argument well.

Rudey and I were discussing the ethical basis for laws earlier in the conversation, and his comparison with eating your mate was a callback to that. He conflated two wholly different arguments - as did you - which is a legitimate logical fallacy.

Something can be "natural" and wrong - eating your mate is clearly wrong under any ethical standard, so we don't have to rely on a narrow, Christian standard (as we shouldn't, I feel, for lawmaking - apparently the Court agrees). My argument, in its entirety, is that laws banning gay marriage are generally based on religious views, and thus shouldn't hold up to judicial review.

Arguing against gay marriage because it is "unnatural" is demonstrably false - you can argue it is wrong for a litany of other (primarily religious) reasons, but "unnatural" simply doesn't work.

[nate2512]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

but "unnatural" simply doesn't work.

I'm totally following the argument. Someone has yet to give a definitive reason as to why being gay is natural.

[AGDee]

Originally Posted by nate2512

I'm totally following the argument. Someone has yet to give a definitive reason as to why being gay is natural.

Because it is occurring in nature. There are people who are gay. These people were not altered by some man made technological method to make them gay, therefore, they are naturally gay.

[Rudey]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

Definitely eating the young is quite similar to husbandry.

I've given you a (limited) concession on incest, why keep bringing up stupid strawmen when you could simply fight the battle on, y'know, logical terms?

Again, things that are natural. So is being born deaf. So is being born with 3 eyes instead of 2.