[willbee]

(Original post by tufc)
Firstly, I'd like to state that I don't see homosexuality as immoral - as someone who is fairly libertarian, love is love, and it's not for anyone else to judge someone for who they fall in love with.

However - especially on TSR - I also see a quite a large hypocrisy in the gay rights movement: If one suggests that homosexuality is wrong, then one is bombarded by replies stating how it's all fine and dandy, because it occurs in the natural world, so is therefore 'natural'. However, if one then suggests that they oppose gay adoption, because it is inherently unnatural, then one is equally bombarded with replies from the same people accusing them of using the naturalistic fallacy (for those of you who don't know, that means arguing that whatever is natural is inherently right/moral, and whatever isn't natural is immoral).

Can someone clear this up for me, because it seems like rank hypocrisy to me to use an argument dependent on the naturalistic fallacy to support gay rights, but then attack arguments against certain gay 'rights' on the basis they depend on the same fallacy?

Actually, gay adoption has been proven to take place among penguins, dolphins and several other species. So it is still a natural occurrence.

http://shanghaiist.com/2011/12/07/ga...adoptive_p.php

Here is an example of the phenomenon.

[ufo2012]

(Original post by RandZul'Zorander)
Outdated research is always invalid due to the fact that the results haven't been retested. Whether this is because of social factors or scientific ones, if it's results haven't been duplicated, in a recent time frame (especially when dealing with issues that change with social climate) then it is invalid. Even scientific research, unless already shown to be almost universally duplicable, is not considered valid if too old.

Not in the professional world it is not.

There may be calls for more up to date research and subsequent funding and studies to fulfill these requests, but while up to date studies do not exist, previous studies even if out of date can still be referenced as they are still valid unless they become superseded.

I get your point about issues changing with social climate, but this would be taken into consideration when looking at the outdated results when producing a newer report or study.

[RandZul'Zorander]

(Original post by ufo2012)
Not in the professional world it is not.

There may be calls for more up to date research and subsequent funding and studies to fulfill these requests, but while up to date studies do not exist, previous studies even if out of date can still be referenced as they are still valid unless they become superseded.

I get your point about issues changing with social climate, but this would be taken into consideration when looking at the outdated results when producing a newer report or study.

It very much is in the professional world. Papers that use outdated research are frowned upon in the scientific community and highly criticized for it.

[ufo2012]

(Original post by RandZul'Zorander)
It very much is in the professional world. Papers that use outdated research are frowned upon in the scientific community and highly criticized for it.

Yes of course, but the way in which you stated so makes out to the casual observer that it does not take place when in actuality it does, even if frowned upon.

[EnigmaticSpirit]

(Original post by Emaemmaemily)
In my experience people only refer to the "homosexuality is natural" argument when people have already said that they think homosexuality is wrong because it's unnatural. It's not usually an argument for homosexuality being right, but just proof that people saying it's unnatural are wrong.

Ah, but those people commit the naturalistic fallacy. That which is natural is not, necessarily, morally right. I support homosexuality and any sexuality that exists though. However, logic is more important. :3

[Emaemmaemily]

(Original post by EnigmaticSpirit)
Ah, but those people commit the naturalistic fallacy. That which is natural is not, necessarily, morally right. I support homosexuality and any sexuality that exists though. However, logic is more important. :3

Yes I know. My point is that people don't usually use the "it's natural arguement" for it's morality at all in my experience. But when other people say "it's disgusting and unnatural" the DO prove to them that it is natural. They are usually aware that this doesn't prove its morality, but it does prove other people's argument wrong.
I hope that makes sense lol. I'm quite aware that it being natural isn't proof that it is morally right (there are plenty of other things to prove that).

[Dinnes]

(Original post by tufc)
Firstly, I'd like to state that I don't see homosexuality as immoral - as someone who is fairly libertarian, love is love, and it's not for anyone else to judge someone for who they fall in love with.

(Under the thread "Do any same-sex couples actually want to get married in church?"

All gay marriage is wrong; marriage is explicitly one man and one woman.

The lack of respect for marriage is becoming more and more widespread. I believe 'gay marriage' will add to that.

Creating gay marriage, though, wouldn't put gay marriages on a level with heterosexual marriages in terms of image, it would just drag down marriage as a whole. And that's probably because there aren't many films where the main character is gay!

Pretty sure opposing marriage is challenging the civil rights of gay people. And you seem to have a disproportionately large issue with gay marriage relative to other societal issues. A bit of homophobia?

Pah.

[sugar-n-spice]

(Original post by tufc)
Firstly, I'd like to state that I don't see homosexuality as immoral - as someone who is fairly libertarian, love is love, and it's not for anyone else to judge someone for who they fall in love with.

However - especially on TSR - I also see a quite a large hypocrisy in the gay rights movement: If one suggests that homosexuality is wrong, then one is bombarded by replies stating how it's all fine and dandy, because it occurs in the natural world, so is therefore 'natural'. However, if one then suggests that they oppose gay adoption, because it is inherently unnatural, then one is equally bombarded with replies from the same people accusing them of using the naturalistic fallacy (for those of you who don't know, that means arguing that whatever is natural is inherently right/moral, and whatever isn't natural is immoral).

Can someone clear this up for me, because it seems like rank hypocrisy to me to use an argument dependent on the naturalistic fallacy to support gay rights, but then attack arguments against certain gay 'rights' on the basis they depend on the same fallacy?

Anyone who uses the nature argument to support gay rights is as ignorant and stupid as knuckle-dragging the thugs they claim to oppose.

[tufc]

(Original post by Dinnes)
(Under the thread "Do any same-sex couples actually want to get married in church?"



Pretty sure opposing marriage is challenging the civil rights of gay people. And you seem to have a disproportionately large issue with gay marriage relative to other societal issues. A bit of homophobia?

Pah.

Marriage isn't really a civil right. When you get married, you're voluntarily entering into a relationship with the state, so it's somewhat different from civil rights such as freedom of speech, which explicitly stop the state from interfering.

[Emaemmaemily]

(Original post by tufc)
Marriage isn't really a civil right. When you get married, you're voluntarily entering into a relationship with the state, so it's somewhat different from civil rights such as freedom of speech, which explicitly stop the state from interfering.

I love how you ignored my response to this that proved you wrong, and just repeated it to someone else.
I think it was on one of the other homosexuality threads, but you still ignored it lol

[tufc]

(Original post by Emaemmaemily)
I love how you ignored my response to this that proved you wrong, and just repeated it to someone else.
I think it was on one of the other homosexuality threads, but you still ignored it lol

I generally don't ignore quotes; I do get a lot, so I miss quite a few. Can you link me to it?

[Emaemmaemily]

(Original post by tufc)
I generally don't ignore quotes; I do get a lot, so I miss quite a few. Can you link me to it?

I am not sure which thread it is in anymore... It was a few days ago and I've been involved in a few that are similar. If I find it, I'll let you know.

Edit: It's this thread http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show...age=11&page=11
In post #209 I answered the point I referred to, proving you wrong because the state serve us, and as society changes so should our laws to reflect that society (as it has throughout history).
You did answer, I see, but instead of answering with some logic to counter me, you simply said that the government should ignore what society wants/needs to "act in their interests". I answered in #215 that stopping this certainly isn't in society's interests, and you have yet to explain why you seem to think this WOULD be better for us than allowing homosexuals to marry.

^ an answer would be nice; you should definitely back up your statements with some logic and proof.

Also, I answered something you said in post #264 page 14, and you ignored it.

[limetang]

(Original post by prog2djent)
Some gay rights people are idiots. They are like religious fanatics in that they either use circular logic, ad homs, scary words, or contradict themselves.

They need to use the arguement "people should be allowed to do what they want as long as they harm no other person". Which most people agree with (apart from religious fanatics and socialists haha) and that should topple any anti-gay marriage or anti-adoption argument.

It wouldn't completely topple any argument though. As people can and do argue that having two mothers or two fathers is harmful to a childs upbringing (as an anti-adoption argument), although this argument can be toppled by pointing out that it's better for a child to have two fathers than no parents at all.

[Dinnes]

(Original post by tufc)
Marriage isn't really a civil right. When you get married, you're voluntarily entering into a relationship with the state, so it's somewhat different from civil rights such as freedom of speech, which explicitly stop the state from interfering.

Are you on drugs or something? Sorry, but since when was marriage focused on the state?

Marriage is two people marrying because they love eachother, not setting up some kind of quasi-nationalist state-loving system!

Marriage is not legally a right but morally I would like to think that most people would agree with me in saying that it is.

[tufc]

(Original post by Dinnes)
Are you on drugs or something? Sorry, but since when was marriage focused on the state?

Marriage is two people marrying because they love eachother, not setting up some kind of quasi-nationalist state-loving system!

Marriage is not legally a right but morally I would like to think that most people would agree with me in saying that it is.

Funny, because last time I checked, marriage was the act of signing the marriage register - a state-owned document.

[minimarshmallow]

(Original post by limetang)
It wouldn't completely topple any argument though. As people can and do argue that having two mothers or two fathers is harmful to a childs upbringing (as an anti-adoption argument), although this argument can be toppled by pointing out that it's better for a child to have two fathers than no parents at all.

It's also been shown by psychologists that it's just as good to have two mums or two dads as it is to have one of each.

[ufo2012]

(Original post by tufc)
Marriage isn't really a civil right. When you get married, you're voluntarily entering into a relationship with the state, so it's somewhat different from civil rights such as freedom of speech, which explicitly stop the state from interfering.

(Original post by Dinnes)
Are you on drugs or something? Sorry, but since when was marriage focused on the state?

How is it not? When you sign the marriage register you are legally declaring to the state that 2 people who were once separate are now together.

Most of the forms you ever have to fill-in for anything you have to declare whether you are single, married or whatever because it is all tied in to the state in some way or another.

Definitely sounds like a state relationship to me.

[Emaemmaemily]

(Original post by ufo2012)
How is it not? When you sign the marriage register you are legally declaring to the state that 2 people who were once separate are now together.

Sounds like a state relationship to me.

The state is there to serve us as a society, and as society changes so too should the laws and the way the state runs things. It has happened throughout history, so there is no reason for it to stop.

[NYU2012]

(Original post by ufo2012)
How is it not? When you sign the marriage register you are legally declaring to the state that 2 people who were once separate are now together.

Most of the forms you ever have to fill-in for anything you have to declare whether you are single, married or whatever because it is all tied in to the state in some way or another.

Definitely sounds like a state relationship to me.

To examine only the State's role in marriage is to ignore the complex intersectionality that is marriage. Marriage is much more than merely a State contract - it just so happens that the State is the 'gate guardian' as to who has access to the institution.

[Dinnes]

(Original post by ufo2012)
How is it not? When you sign the marriage register you are legally declaring to the state that 2 people who were once separate are now together.

Most of the forms you ever have to fill-in for anything you have to declare whether you are single, married or whatever because it is all tied in to the state in some way or another.

Definitely sounds like a state relationship to me.

It's linked to the state but tufc gives the impression that the most important thing is that relationship. And it is only linked so far as you put your name on a form. The fact is is that Marriage means much more about the two individuals and the relationship they have between eachother than the relationship between the subsequent couple and the state. If we held a poll on TSR asking whether marriage meant more as a relationship between two people or as a relationship between a couple and the state then the former would win.