So gay!!!

[One Brow]

The implication I got from you was that you were claiming that there was substantial evidence which, if viewed objectively, would give person no "choice" but to conclude that homosexuality is largely biological (or some other conclusion DICTATED by the evidence). Did you have some other point in mind?

What is this even referring to?: "we have no mechanism for the behavior of homosexuality to cause the previously quoted biological discrepancies. "

We have had listed in this thread some 20 or so biological differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals. We don't have any sort of mechanism for the behavior of homosexuality to cause these biological differences. Now, these specific differences individually or collectively may or may not be causal themselves, or the additional results of some other biological effects. However, we do have good evidence of biological influence.

If I say: "If you jump off a 10 story buildin, then, most likely, you will bust your head and die," then that statement is "hypothetical," not actual. It's still a "pragmatic" consideration to be assessed before jumpin, aint it?

If I'm jumping onto the roof of 9 story building, I most likely will survive without injury. Until you provide some actual evidence for the height of the fall, there is no pragmatic concern, just hysteria-mongering.

Or is an activist just a judge who rules against something you favor?

Bingo.

By any reasonable attempt to apply the common meaning of "activist", Brown vs. Board of Education would have been an activist ruling. It is never described as such.

 

[Hopper]

We have had listed in this thread some 20 or so biological differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals. We don't have any sort of mechanism for the behavior of homosexuality to cause these biological differences. Now, these specific differences individually or collectively may or may not be causal themselves, or the additional results of some other biological effects. However, we do have good evidence of biological influence.

I guess I missed that. Was that in some link or actually spelled out in a post?

If I'm jumping onto the roof of 9 story building, I most likely will survive without injury. Until you provide some actual evidence for the height of the fall, there is no pragmatic concern, just hysteria-mongering.

Eric, this is a very typical response from you and I often wonder if you take such responses seriously, or are just sayin things to "debate." Suppose you were taken, blindfolded, to the edge of a 10-story building, and you had reason to believe that's exactly where you were. You were then ordered to jump. Would you really unhesitatingly jump, figuring there could be the roof of a 9 story building below you? Would you have no concerns whatsover that it might be a 10 story free-fall because any thought or suggestion of such a possibility was merely "hysteria-mongering?"

I seriously doubt it. But this is a very typical mode of argument for you. Any "possibility," no matter how implausible or remote, seems to be the "default truth" for you if that's the kind of case you prefer to believe in. I could easily respond to the specifics of your "no convincing proof, therefore not worth considering" line of reasoning in this case, but that's not even the point. This is a commonly recurring "form" of response in my discussions with you. You seem to think it's a valid form, and an adequate response to anything you hear. It aint. I'm wondering why you can't see that, or pretend not to?

 

[Hopper]

Change the hypothetical facts, if you want, Eric. You are told to jump, blindfolded, from an unknown spot. You ask (or don't ask, if you prefer) how far the drop is. If you ask, you are told: "That's not any concern of yours. Just jump. Could be 2 feet, could be 2,000 feet. Nuthin for you to worry about, just jump." Ya gunna jump?

No one has proven to you that it's 2000 feet, or 1999 feet, nine and 15/16 inches, or any other particular number, right? So, now, the number in question is not even a "pragmatic concern?" That your argument?

 

[One Brow]

I guess I missed that. Was that in some link or actually spelled out in a post?

They were spelled out in a post, by (IIRC) H. E. Pennypacker.

Would you really unhesitatingly jump, figuring there could be the roof of a 9 story building below you? Would you have no concerns whatsover that it might be a 10 story free-fall because any thought or suggestion of such a possibility was merely "hysteria-mongering?"

Depends on who's taking me to the roof of the building, I expect.

But this is a very typical mode of argument for you. Any "possibility," no matter how implausible or remote, seems to be the "default truth" for you if that's the kind of case you prefer to believe in.

The "default truth", in this instance, is that there needs to be a valid secular reason for not recognizing homosexual marriages. I don't see that as being implausible nor remote. If you do, then we will probably, simply disagree on how central the civil right to marriage is to American society. If you really want to bring an argument that this "default truth" is implausible or remote, bring it. If, in some future argument, you feel some other "default truth" is remote or implausible, I will certainly evaluate that claim as well.

I could easily respond to the specifics of your "no convincing proof, therefore not worth considering" line of reasoning in this case, but that's not even the point.

Then, what is your point? You don't know the height of the building, but what it it is ten stories? My answer: get out your tape measure!

 

[One Brow]

Ya gunna jump?

Who's asking, and what's the purpose of the jump? You saying I shouldn't jump to defend basic civil liberties?

 

[Hopper]

Who's asking, and what's the purpose of the jump? You saying I shouldn't jump to defend basic civil liberties?

Before I respond to this, I will wait for your response to my second post.

Edit: Or is that your response? I see I have used the short question in both posts.

2nd edit: Well, mebbe I didn't. Eric, how do you get from the question of what a "pragmatic concern" is to the question of the ultimate merits of a civil rights case? You seem to be talking like they are two identical questions, eh?

 

[One Brow]

Eric, how do you get from the question of what a "pragmatic concern" is to the question of the ultimate merits of a civil rights case? You seem to be talking like they are two identical questions, eh?

Maybe I misunderstood your metaphor.

To me, the "jump" is legalizing same-sex marriage. The "10 stories" are the possibility that the jump wil prove "fatal" (too expensive). So yes, even if the hieght is 10 stories, I still jump. More realistically, if it means my taxes go up becuase of this, than they do.

 

[Hopper]

Maybe I misunderstood your metaphor.

To me, the "jump" is legalizing same-sex marriage. The "10 stories" are the possibility that the jump wil prove "fatal" (too expensive). So yes, even if the hieght is 10 stories, I still jump. More realistically, if it means my taxes go up becuase of this, than they do.

Well, Eric, the whole "metaphor" arose out of a series of prior exchanges about what would constitute a "pragmatic concern" not the ultimate merits of the case for or against gay marriage. So, yes, you did misunderstand what I was asking.

I don't know if its possible for you to "go back," re-think the question in an alternate light, and then answer, or even if you want to. But at this point I would simply say you didn't respond to the question.

 

[One Brow]

I admit, I'm not sure what the point would be about discussing the limits of what a pragmatic concern would be in any conceivable situation. I've pretty much made all my comments under the rubric of homosexual marriage.

 

[Hopper]

Well, Eric, just to be clear, my current questions are more directed to the style of argument you often make, which I often find quite frustrating. I think your responses so far have helped reveal where I think the problem (as I see it to be, anyway) lies.

I think that in our debates, the answers you give are often intended to answer what you deem to be the "ultimate" issue, without any real regard to the particular question being asked. This leads to a lot of confusion, I think. As an example, take the two following responses:

1. I don't CARE about pragmatic concerns. They are insignificant to me. I therefore ignore them. For me they don't even exist, because they are not a "concern" of mine, even if someone else may have such concerns.

2. There are no pragmatic concerns.

Although perhaps similar in some respects, those are two ENTIRELY different answers in my book. To give answer 2, when you only intend answer 1, can be very misleading.

 

[One Brow]

1. I don't CARE about pragmatic concerns. They are insignificant to me. I therefore ignore them. For me they don't even exist, because they are not a "concern" of mine, even if someone else may have such concerns.

2. There are no pragmatic concerns.

Although perhaps similar in some respects, those are two ENTIRELY different answers in my book. To give answer 2, when you only intend answer 1, can be very misleading.

In terms of that clarification, regarding 2), until you have measured the height of a building in some fashion, you don't know if it is ten stories tall, and you don't have a pragmatic concern. As I mentioned before, you have to measure the building.

Regarding 1), I don't view seeing my taxes raised as being insignificant. However, I do see basic civil rights concerns trumping monetary concerns, regardless.

 

[Hopper]

In terms of that clarification, regarding 2), until you have measured the height of a building in some fashion, you don't know if it is ten stories tall, and you don't have a pragmatic concern. As I mentioned before, you have to measure the building.

Yes, you did say that before, which is why I asked the following question, which you never answered:

Change the hypothetical facts, if you want, Eric. You are told to jump, blindfolded, from an unknown spot. You ask (or don't ask, if you prefer) how far the drop is. If you ask, you are told: "That's not any concern of yours. Just jump. Could be 2 feet, could be 2,000 feet. Nuthin for you to worry about, just jump." Ya gunna jump?

No one has proven to you that it's 2000 feet, or 1999 feet, nine and 15/16 inches, or any other particular number, right? So, now, the number in question is not even a "pragmatic concern?" That your argument?

 

[Hopper]

I do see basic civil rights concerns trumping monetary concerns, regardless.

OK, fine, Eric. I can understand this view, and can respect it. Again, my only point was that, if that's what you're really trying to say, it's better to just say it than to, instead, assert a conclusion which you think your position entails (such as, for example, "monetary concerns are non-existent").

 

[One Brow]

Yes, you did say that before, which is why I asked the following question, which you never answered:

Sorry, I thought I did answer it. I would jump if being asked to by certain people, or if it could guarantee certain causes.

 

[Hopper]

Sorry, I thought I did answer it. I would jump if being asked to by certain people, or if it could guarantee certain causes.

Well, Eric, I meant the last question, not the intermediate one. This one:

"No one has proven to you that it's 2000 feet, or 1999 feet, nine and 15/16 inches, or any other particular number, right? So, now, the number in question is not even a "pragmatic concern?" That your argument?"

 

[One Brow]

If you don't know the number, and have no way of getting the number, then you can't use it to make a decision. What do you see as the pragmatic influence of that lack of information?

 

[Hopper]

If you don't know the number, and have no way of getting the number, then you can't use it to make a decision. What do you see as the pragmatic influence of that lack of information?

"What do you see as the pragmatic influence of that lack of information?": Well, plenty, don't you? If I don't know how far I'm gunna drop, I'm gunna be reluctant to jump, whether I have a way of getting the information, or not. The "lack of information" doesn't turn the question of distance into one of "no pragmatic concern" for me. But in the circumstances we've been discussing, generally (gay marriage) it's not like a good estimate of the "information" cannot be obtained, even if you don't know it offhand.

In my analogy, I might ask that I be unblindfolded, before I decided to jump, rather than just jump because I was told to. I could than get "some idea" of the distance of the fall, even if it wasn't precisely measured. I wouldn't need a "tape measure" to make my decision.

"If you don't know the number, and have no way of getting the number, then you can't use it to make a decision." Ya see, it's this kinda statement that puzzles me. You are in effect sayin, it seems, that if you don't know, then the information is irrelevant and/or that if you "don't know," then all decisions are equal in consequence, and should therefore be selected from merely on the basis of what one "feels" like deciding.

"If you don't know the number, and have no way of getting the number, then you can't use it to make a decision." Deciding not to jump is a "decision" where I come from.

 

[Scat]

"What do you see as the pragmatic influence of that lack of information?": Well, plenty, don't you? If I don't know how far I'm gunna drop, I'm gunna be reluctant to jump, whether I have a way of getting the information, or not. The "lack of information" doesn't turn the question of distance into one of "no pragmatic concern" for me. But in the circumstances we've been discussing, generally (gay marriage) it's not like a good estimate of the "information" cannot be obtained, even if you don't know it offhand.

In my analogy, I might ask that I be unblindfolded, before I decided to jump, rather than just jump because I was told to. I could than get "some idea" of the distance of the fall, even if it wasn't precisely measured. I wouldn't need a "tape measure" to make my decision.

"If you don't know the number, and have no way of getting the number, then you can't use it to make a decision." Ya see, it's this kinda statement that puzzles me. You are in effect sayin, it seems, that if you don't know, then the information is irrelevant and/or that if you "don't know," then all decisions are equal in consequence, and should therefore be selected from merely on the basis of what one "feels" like deciding.

"If you don't know the number, and have no way of getting the number, then you can't use it to make a decision." Deciding not to jump is a "decision" where I come from.

Speaking of pragmatic, unless the building is on fire why would you two be arguing about jumping off a perfectly good building??

 

[Hopper]

Speaking of pragmatic, unless the building is on fire why would you two be arguing about jumping off a perfectly good building??

Well, Marcus, why not, I ax ya?

 

[The Thriller]

I had a friend on facebook talk about how if its legalized that people could then one day get married to their dogs. Doesn't the whole Equal Protection Clause kind of prevent that since animals aren't considered citizens or persons? If animals have the rights that citizens have, does that mean that they can vote, take up arms, and then pay taxes?