mooeypoo

Party pooper.

.. in which frame of reference? Kapow.

I dunno, jackson33, I always got frustrated that I couldn't join in...

How is that the best resolution to such threads, though? I never understood the appeal of the 1on1 section, honestly. It seems to me that the best discussions are ones where there are MANY people sharing views, helping one another phrase their thoughts and/or argue on subtle points, etc. I always thought 1on1 debates usually test the participants' charisma, rather than the subject at hand. ~moo

People of the thread, hear yee hear yee. The thread has taken a bit of a swing to another type of questions, some of it became questionably uncivil. Pangloss has taken the immediate action of closing the thread and leaving - as a last remark - my previous post that explains the general issues that caused some discontent on the thread. A main issue you all should remember is that this argument is specific, and is not about the whole picture. We are arguing specifically about valid logical reasonings behind opinions, and not necessarily general issues regarding homosexuality and gays in general. When the topic shifts, emotions flare up, and the thread becomes a place of discontent rather than a civil exchange of views. We are going over the thread now and will reconsider deleting the above posts. We know you took the time to write them, and none of us - not Pangloss, myself, or any other moderator - mean to disrespect your efforts. This has been an attempt to restrain a rampant subject, on the verge of getting very personal, very emotional, and very uncivil. Give us a little bit of time to examine which posts should and shouldn't be reinstated. Also, take the closure time to gather your breath and consider that this is - for many of us - a personal subject, and see if it is possible to present your views in a more civil manner, regardless of their content. We are all entitled for our opinions. It's not about WHAT you say, it's HOW you say it. Please take this temporary-closure time to think about that. ~moo Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedThis post is not meant to be a strict summary, but rather a general reminder of the points made. I'm not going to pretend to be able to summarize a 300 post long thread, but we do need some sort of interlude here or the thread is going to go very badly. I again remind all of you that the important issue here is the attitude by which you explain your positions. We are all entitled to have our positions, but we should make sure we are being civil and considerate. That is also part of the forum's rules of conduct. Please try to follow them. The thread's question is a very specific one: "Are there any relevant secular reasons to oppose gay marriage?" The subject is very complex, and this thread concentrates ONLY inside the scope of the question. The main idea is to examine the motives behind people's opinions. The matter of them having the right to hold these opinion is not under debate; we are all entitled to our opinions and to speak about our opinions. However, the discussion is specifically about finding relevant secular reasons that are rational and not emotional. The contention of this thread is that there are no such reasons to be found. The thread is meant to test this hypothesis by asking people to give examples of relevant secular reasons to oppose gay marriage. JillSwift summarized this idea very nicely: Maybe by debating here, we can all find out "WHY". Whether we change our beliefs or not is really not relevant for the specific discussion. Remember, we're talking about motivations behind the opinion, not motivations to act. Actions, in the scope of this thread, are irrelevant. There are a few main issues that frame this debate. First, we are debating a specific question. It has no bearing (at the moment) on whether or not an action should be taken to change the laws, or whether or not people should actively support gay marriage. The question is simply meant to examine the reasoning behind opposing gay marriage. Second, the debate is meant to examine reasons behind opinions, not to judge the people holding those opinions. Because we concentrate on a very narrow, very specific aspect in this (otherwise quite complicated) issue, the conclusions must remain in the realm of the question itself. We're debating the rationality of reasoning behind specific opinion. We should not extend that to say a general statement about the person holding such opinion, because we quite frankly don't know. The thread started "with a bang" - a statement that was blunt and strong. That isn't to say that it doesn't have merit, or that it didn't take a slight turn in subject. In general, the claim was not yet disproven, as the reasonings put forth were either shown to be inconsistent, stemming from religious views or irrelevant for the sake of this discussion. That, however, does not mean the subject is forever true. It will be enough for someone to present a single relevant secular reasoning that is rational and consistent to show that the premise of the thread is wrong. This, however, still needs to be shown. Also, we should take into account that we all hold irrational beliefs; some of us care about trying to change them, some don't, but either way, the discussion at hand is meant to serve as a way to examine our own personal reasonings behind our own opinions. If it leads to any of us reconsidering our values, all the better. The process of considering our values is what makes us thinking, moral people. Whether we agree about the conclusion is a completely different issue. So, here is a brief and general list of the claims that were brought forth. I am not sure if it's complete, but it doesn't have to be. The discussion will be reopened and anyone could bring up any claimj they want. The purpose of this post is to summarize, briefly, this massive 11-page 300-posts thread. Marriage is a term made for "Man" and "Woman". This claim was shown to be inconsistent, because the definition of marriage has changed repeatedly since it's creation, both socially and legally. For one, marriage refered to a sort of buying-rights of the woman; that obviously changed. Also, the legal definition excluded "colored" people. That, too, has changed. Further, this claim is irrelevant for the scope of the debate, as was shown before, because legal definitions are not, by themselves, reasoning to hold an opinion, as the next point discusses. Lastly, the definition is based on religion, which makes this a non-secular reasoning. Gays are legally excluded from the definition of marriage by the law, therefore gay marriage should be opposed. (I simplified the claim; please correct me if you think I oversimplified it) This is irrelevant for the scope of this debate. We are discussing motivation behind opinion, not action. The claim, thereofre, is inconsistent, because if it were true, people should have agreed with all laws, and never change those laws. Historically, that is shown to be false. Also, it's irrelevant as a reason, by itself, to hold an opinion, and is therefore irrelevant for the scope of this debate. Gays cannot reproduce, therefore should not be encouraged to marry. This is a claim holding two other claims within it. First, that gays cannot reproduce. This claim is inconsistent: there are many other couples that cannot reproduce and are still allowed to marry and get the equal rights. Second, allowing for gay couples to marry does not equal "encouragement". Those couples already are living in a binding relationship - the term 'wedding' and the rights that come along with it are an addition to that existing situation. Marriage in general should be abolished. Let's just call it "civil union" for everyone. This is irrelevant for the scope of this debate. It's shifting the argument. The question isn't how one can find a practical solution to the problem, the question is what motivation one can find behind an opinion. This claim just shifts the question from one definition to another. We can create a new definition for gays only. Again, that is shifting the question. If one thinks that a new definition should b efound, it implies the person is not opposing gay marriage, but rather trying to find a practical solution for it. That is beyond the scope of the debate. If the idea of a separate definition stems from a notion that "Marriage" is strictly between a man and a woman, then we should go back to point #1. Finally, this suggestion means that gay couples should be excluded from the rest of society in this definition. This must be supported by a valid reason, otherwise it's not relevant or rational. Finally, the proble with definitions - particularly one of 'marriage' is that they STEM from religious viewpoint. If that's the case, then this reasoning is not secular. Jill did a good job summarizing the idea of definitions in this post, answered by Mr Skeptic's post and about 5-6 following posts. Marriage is the legal establishment of an intent to produce children This claim is inconsistent. If it were so, then infertile couples would not have recieved marriage certificate. Nor would couples with some genetic abnormality that can be passed on to the next generation. Obviously, the state does not see marriage as that type of establishment. There are physical differences between gay couples and straight couples. Yes there are (though probably less than many thing), but there are also physical differences between men and women, that does not make it a valid reason to oppose equality between the sexes. The claim is irrelevant and inconsistent. There were some claims about child safety and psychology for children being raised by gay couples. This claim was shown to be completely false by peer reviewed articles and quite a large number of research papers. There was no significant difference between children raised in straight or gay homes. The claim is based on false data, and is therefore irrelevant. Here's my post with 4 peer-reviewed research papers and 3 extra links on the matter: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showpost.php?p=515005&postcount=156 The reasons given are not judged by their superiority to one another, only by their relevancy and secular nature. Those are two conditions that should apply to a reason for it to flip the contention of the thread. In post #182, StringJunky makes a very good point: The purpose here is to debate and examine our views (and others' views). If we continue this debate under the assumption that we're all here to exchange views rather than to attack views, we will have a much better discussion. It was a hard task going over the thread and trying to summarize the points made. I am quite sure I missed points and/or missed counterpoints or explanations. Please feel free to correct me or point out if a claim that seemingly was shown to be irrelevant/non-secular wasn't shown to be so, and we can solve the remaining issues. However, I urge you all to remember this is a delicate subject touching many of us personally. Please try to make sure your replies are civil and respectful so we can all learn from one another. ~moo Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedThread reopened. The deleted posts were reinstated. Again, you are all asked to review the code of conduct and try to be careful of the attitude you choose to show when posting.

You can claim the opinion isn't based on evidence, and you can claim that this makes the opinion not necessarily rational, but that doesn't mean the person is unreasonable, or irrational, or that he/she has no right holding such opinion. That's the point I was trying to make in the beginning of this thread. We, humans, are not really strictly-logical people. It takes effort to be rational and consider rational-basis for our beliefs and opinions. If a person (like me for instance) considers this an important endeavor, they might put more effort into examining their own stances on various aspects of their lives and, maybe, change their minds on issues, but that isn't something that naturally happens, and we should take it into account. People have opinions and those aren't necessarily based on totally rational premises. We can point out that the reasoning isn't rational, is inconsistent or is religious (and therefore is based on non-rational reasoning, etc) or is emotional, but there's a difference between debating this point and claiming a person is irrational as a whole, or requiring the person to change their minds outright. ~moo

Also, I'm not the one that has the burden of proof, you are, artnat. You're making the claim, you're in need of providing evidence. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Scientism or the "Church of Science" is a fictional religion from Isaac Asimov's Foundation Series. It is first mentioned in Part III of Foundation, "The Mayors", and makes its last appearance in Part V, "The Merchant Princes". source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism_%28Foundation%29 Can we be serious now? Please? Good. Don't forget, artnat, that you came to us, not the other way around. You are the one who is making a claim, and you came to us to convince us your claim is reasonable. You're the one who should supply the evidence, not the other way around. Also, coming to a science forum and disrespecting the members there is not a very smart way of starting a conversation. Try again, hm? ~moo

They're not making claims about factual contentions, they're presenting valid questions about ours. And we're answering them. It's part of the discussion, iNow, as it has been for the rest of the thread. I do agree that SO FAR, the question of the thread seems to be a quite certain "NO". We might do well by putting up a summarizing post with the general claims-counterclaims that we've seen so far. Then, we can expect people to only post new claims and not repeat themselves. As it is now, the thread is very long and tiring, and it's not surprising some repeat claims. Also, let's not forget we're arguing about opinions and principles here. While I agree that we are taking the angle of looking at how *rational* those claims are, they are still opinions. This isn't a science debate. We don't have a clear-cut evidence for either way. That point of this thread is made. We need to summarize it and see if anyone else manages to find a counter claim that proves it wrong. ~moo

Guys, take a breather, double read your posts, and be civil. This is a delicate subject, let's stay focused. Do not make this a personal subject. Stay civil.

"scientism" ? artnat, this is very simple. Science is empirical. We require empirical evidence. Do you have any or not?

Yes, because angelfire is so much more reliable as a scientific source. artnat, how about some actual science here? Like math, or evidence, or peer reviewed articles? something?

Great question. I can't answer for anyone other than myself. My answer would be that I can't think of any SECULAR RELEVANT reasons that are consistent to oppose these marriages besides a single condition (which is dependent on my not-opposing them) that they do not involve abuse - either mental or physical. The child and parent one I would oppose if "child" means under 18, for the same reason as above -- reducing the risk of abuse. If both parties are grown adults, are not being abused (again, mental abuse is also abuse) and are consenting to it, then though I wouldn't fully support it, or promote it, I see no logical reason to oppose it. ~moo

Now who of you just ran out to get some watermelon? Yes? Yes? show of hands? Eating watermelon has a similar effect on the body to Viagra, according to researchers in the US. It's down to a chemical called citrulline which is found in the juicy fruit. ... Citrulline is an organic compound which affects the body's blood vessels in the same way as the sex enhancement pills. http://news.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/hi/health/newsid_7498000/7498061.stm

GogoJF, it's quite clear you're only here to talk out of thin air, otherwise you'd have posted some actual equations and actual data. I recommend you go over the forum rules. You agreed to follow them by signing in (remember the "I agree" button? That one). As it goes at the moment, you're in complete violation of the rules, as well as totally failing not only to prove your own pet theory, but to talk science. Hypotheses are worthless without scientific backing. You've been given the chance, over and over again. You have recieved explanations of why your blank questions are meaningless in the light of repetitive evidence to the contrary. Your theory is bunk because you can't prove it. This thread is closed. ~moo

No no, I said that if they can't find a reasonable reason, then they either have to admit they're believing it depite reason or reconsider the matter. It doesn't necessarily mean they're unreasonable in general. People have unreasonable beliefs while still being generally reasonable. Right, which is why I again repeat that we need to remember this isn't the whole picture. First off, a person is allowed to have unreasonable beliefs. They just shouldn't expect to get away with claiming those beliefs are reasonable when they're not. Second, the mere debate - on its own - is, in my opinion, more important than whatever conclusion is drawn out of it. When we debate, we reconsider our own stances on things, and examine our way of thinking. We become better thinkers and we improve our own set of beliefs -- whatever they may be. The discussion here is what matters, imho. Third, we're tackling reason specifically in this thread, so obviously we will discuss reason. If this was a general debate about gay marriage or rights for marriage we might've had a discussion about sufficient reasoning or emotional experiences. But we're not. This thread deals SPECIFICALLY with logical reasons. Specifically. That's why we insist on reason and rationality. It's the topic. I'm not sure I understood what you mean. In any case, I didn't talk about perceptions, I talked about inconsistency. The claim was inconsistent, regardless of perception. But maybe you can clarify what you mean? Not sure I understood.

Gogo, I'm not going to continue this fruitless exchange if you are determined on avoiding your responsibility. you are the one making the claim, you are the one who has the burden of proof. I provided you with links to experiments and demonstrations and mathematics that completely obliterate your idea. They prove unequivocally that light is not instantenous. Your theory is dead. It's now your turn to defend it, and your insistence that I am supposed to be the one to encourage you is ridiculous. We didn't come to you, you came to us. Live up to your responsibilities, or face the fact that you can't. If you can, stop beating around the bush already and supply the experimentation and evidence and mathematics. Seriously, now. We're a science forum, not a soundboard to your pet pseudoscience idea. It's not ingrained, it's proven. It's proven mathematically, it's proven experimentally, over and over and over again. It's proven by predictions. It seems you're the one with the closed mind, GogoJF. ~moo

So far you're just talking, Gogo.. give me something. An explanation, to begin with. You would need math to support it, and experimentational data to disprove the current theory and show yours to be true. You tell me.. what would YOU require as proof for such a preposterous claim as "gravity is instantaneous" that goes against *ALL* experiments and evidence? I need some actual evidence, rather than your begging for us to believe you. This isn't an emotional appeal here. I need science. ~moo

Yeah, but we're discussing the motives behind the opinions. Wehther or not this will change people's opinion is doubtful, true, but we're still trying to dig up the true reasoning behind them. Laws usually (and GENERALLY speaking) reflect the overall sense of morality of the society. Before laws can be formed or changed or enacted, the people need to know what they believe in. Beliefs can be challenged, and beliefs do change as we grow in age and in experience. The goal here is to see the reasons behind these beliefs. Maybe people won't change their minds about it, but they might at least understand others (and themselves) better.

Yep, I'm going over it, but as I said, you will need to EXPLAIN these contradictions. I'm open minded, but you need to start supplying explanations and evidence, otherwise your theory is bunk. This isn't a matter of opinion here, it's science. Empirical science. Your "way of thinking" has absolutely NOTHING to do with anything. Reality does. It's as if I come to you and say that gravity is instantenous. That if I drop a 100lb ball from the empire state building, it will instantenously be on the ground, creating a crater. Experiments proved me wrong. As much as I can try to explain my personal logic, it doesn't negate the fact that my hypothesis was SHOWN to be false. If I was to continue claiming it, I'd have to EXPLAIN why 100lb ball dropping from the empire state building is an exception to my rule. You're in need of explaining. Reality shows light has a fixed speed, and is NOT instantaneous. You either explain that, or we you're stuck with talking unrealistic imaginary wishful thinking. ~moo

Ah! Constitutional, perhaps, but we're here talking (as we've discussed before) less about lawfulness and more about an opinion. the goal here is to see if there's a valid secular reason to support such opinion against gay marriage, so though the argument about equality in the eyes of the constitution is an interesting one, and a valid argument in itself, it's not quite what we're discussing here. The separate definitions might be equal constitutionally (not sure about that, btw, because they're still SEPARATE, but I'll accept that), but they are not equal socially, and the might actually contribute more for the increase of social inequality. Yes, you'd get equal lawful rights. That's a great step forward, but it isn't 100% equality. If we were arguing about what can we do to promote the idea of gay marriage, I'd have agreed with you. As it happens, the argument is about principles. A theoretical debate about the reasoning behind opinions. ~moo

Sorry about that. Fixing now. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedSo, GogoJF, we have actual physical experiments demonstrating that light is not instantenous. This isn't just theoretical concept, it's been demonstrated multiple times.. Other than the very simple experiment you can do at home to demonstrate the speed of light, you would need to explain the phenomena of refraction without resorting to using the speed of light (good luck), the doppler effect, and many many experiments. Also, systems like Radar and GPS seem to completely obliterate your idea of instantaneous light. Unless you can formulate some sort of explanation of why these experiments and demonstrations are suitable to your claim, it seems your claim is proven false. ~moo

Actually, is it? By definition, isn't this also inequality? If you would have proposed a different name for biracial marriage, would it still be a matter of opinion to say that it's unequal by itself? The idea that you would need a different definition hints that there's a need to separate the groups. It might end up being equal by the law, but that doesn't mean ti will be equal socially.. in fact, it seems to me that it would only serve to further ingrain the insistence on singling out of gay couples. Yes, because of what I wrote above. It might be equal by law, but it will be inequal socially, and serve to further single out gay couples rather than treat them as equal members of the society. Equality by law is only one aspect of equality. ~moo

GogoJF, your post was removed for a reason. This has nothing to do with the current thread, and it's called thread hijacking - which is against the rules. Your post was removed to a new thread in the speculation forum. Please stay on topic THERE. ~moo

Post was moved to its own thread, into the Pseudoscience/Speculations forum. GogoJF, since this is in complete contrast to known evidence, you are in need of providing some basis for your claim.

http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2009/09/18/glove-writing.html From the article: A fingerless bike glove equipped with electrical sensors lets you write on thin air, according to new research. The modified glove could not only allow for discreet, one-handed text messaging but also create an early warning system for neurodegenerative diseases like Parkinson's ... Placing the patches over the major muscle groups in the hand and lower arm, the researchers recorded the time and strength of the impulse and input the data into a computer program. Now that's pretty neat! Beyond the application as early detection of neurodegenerative diseases, this has huge applications for.. well anything, really. If this can read delicate inputs from muscles, it might be able to assist people with muscle problems or many types of disability, perhaps? I couldn't help but thinking of applications to medicine, too.. like delicate surgeries using computer assistance. There are already systems that can do that but they're all lacking some form of percision and they're used for specific applications. This might increase the availability and use of these..