CA Overturns Gay Marriage Ban!

[Ming]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
Are you saying that there is no science to psychology? I admit it isn't very well developed.

I'm agreeing with you here... it isn't very well developed.
There are vast disagreements, and MANY different opinions.

And my statements about incest being bad is based on a few reviews I have had. If you have heard differently, please link that to me. And not some wack job please.

You haven't provided any links... and if you do, no religious wack jobs please

Debate and dicussion don't exist in a void. That is just intellectual masturbation. My memory is that psychologists say incest is mentally/emotionally bad.

It most definetly is bad if it is not consentual... of if the consent is based on fear or control. However, there is much debate on the subject when it is consentual and freely given. As stated earlier, many consider it cultural based.

You guys can ignore observation and reality all you want, in the past it would lead you to beleive the earth was flat. Or that we didn't land on the moon.

Actually, it's the other way around. You even agree that this area of "science" is not very well developed... yet you are considering it absolute. I do believe in the harder sciences... where there is considerable truth. I see the area of the mind as a science that hasn't offered up much proof yet, and is still open to many different opinions and conclusions.

You are ignoring that there are far more ways that a group marriage is unstable and unhealthy than a standard marriage. You are also ignoring the statistics that they are less healthy/stable. You are ignoring the observations that they are less stable/healthy.

The question is really just how much... and should it matter. Hetero relationships are also unstable and unhealthy... it's just a matter of degrees. Since neither is 100% they can both be considered bad.

You can't ignore all these problems, just by saying that occasionally normal marriages have problems

It's not occasionally... the problems in normal marriages are extensive. Over half of all marriages fail. That is not "occasional". You can't hold that up as an example of success. To point at others because the success rate may be even lower is the pot calling the kettle black.

The fact is, all relationships can be good or bad. It depends on the situation and the people involved.

If one type of relationship generally increases health and is stable, and another type generally decreases health and is unstable, then it is in the states interest to encourage the one and discourage another.

With a failure rate of 50% I wouldn't say it generally increases health and is stable. It's boarderline at best.

And in the cases of incest and bigamy, if you encourage them they are in direct competition with 2-person marriage (while homosexual marriage is not, or is very very slightly).

Well maybe some people would be better off in such relationships, since obviously the normal marriage structure isn't working with a 50% failure rate. Maybe if society accepted these alternatives, and took the social stigma away, more people could find a relationship that best suited them. The problem now is, they aren't really offered an alternative that is accepted by society. Maybe the success rates for all types of relationships would increas if they were accepted. NOBODY KNOWS!

We do know that many homosexuals found their way into normal hetero sexsual relationships because they were forced into them by socieity norms... These marriages obviously didn't work... they failed, and now gays are starting to get a real option. One that will make them more happy.

And please stop misrepresenting what I said Ming, I said that if you want to have sex with your sibling/parent you should go to counseling.
JM

In some societies, you would be considered to be the one that needed counseling... and that's my point.
You are basing it on your opinion. You are not open to the thought that other society or other people may not share your opinion, and would consider you the wack job.

[Heraclitus]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
In fact, link me to one paper in pyschology about how incestal relationships are good, and I will go and check to make sure that the majority of psychologists hold my position.

I have just made it a lot easier for you.

JM

Two words: cultural bias


Social sciences aren't.

[Wezil]

I suspect there isn't much research on the topic anyway as incestuous relationships are legally and socially taboo. You wouldn't get much of a sample size.

Most of the google hits I find on the subject deal with child abuse.

[Heraclitus]

Originally posted by Jon Miller

Of course, I am a scientist and most of you aren't.

JM

I think I may have a fair claim to that title. And even if I don't (yet) I can assure you a lot of time and study have been spent on my part to try to make my own ethical system consistent, logical and grounded in reality... and even more time has been spent trying to convince others to do the same.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by snoopy369
Incest will never be legal; it is actually destructive to the society (it decreases genetic variation, and increases birth defects, which have a societal cost, both in health care and in making society directly weaker

Unless it became mandatory, the effects of inbreeding on decreased genetic variation within the existing human population would be so small as to approach zero. It can have significant affects in small geographic areas, but then again inbreeding does not cause necessarily cause birth defects.

The concept of crap in - crap out, quality in - quality out has been understood in animal husbandry for thousands of years.

[Heraclitus]

Originally posted by Ming

Again, you are trying to instill your religious beliefs on other people, and doing it by hiding behind arguments that aren't logical.

Ming is very very right.


Even if you are not personally religius (for all I know you could be an atheist or a deist) your thinking shows clear markings of being a "cultural Christian". This is not a problem, the problem comes when you try to make your culture universal.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Agathon


Did I say they were? No.

But they follow from the principle that you hitched your flag to.

I don't agree with Ben about gay marriage or abortion. But he has a point that is worth thinking over. The liberal arguments for both rest on individual liberty. Yet the same principles of individual liberty can be used to justify widespread discrimination against gay people, or the removal of child support laws.

Liberals who offer these arguments do the usual thing and just hold to the argument when it suits them. The standard liberal arguments for abortion have some extremely unpleasant consequences for women when taken to their logical conclusion (a fact that a minority of feminists have noted to their horror).

The problem with arguments about gay marriage is that they focus on the Millian principle without fully thinking out its consequences. They treat it as a sufficient reason for legalizing gay marriage, when it isn't.

A less vulnerable and more consistent defence would be to base the claim on the fact that gay people can develop relationships that are just as deep and meaningful as heterosexual relationships. The purpose of marriage laws is to provide some public recognition of such relationships and offer them meaningful legal protection.

Ming's objection that the state doesn't prevent idiots from entering bad marriages doesn't change the point that marriage legislation is intended to protect a certain ideal class of relationships. Of course the state can't stop people entering bad marriages, but that is a side effect of other values and does not reflect upon the value of marriage legislation itself or the kinds of relationships it is intended to protect. Similarly, the argument that childless couples may marry does not change the fact that the original social purpose of marriage had much to do with children. I don't think this is still the case, so there would be an obvious point of disagreement there.

So Ben is correct to see the debate as one about the fundamental purpose of marriage, rather than as a matter of individual liberty. It's just that he disagrees with most of us over the purpose of marriage and the claim that homosexuals can be party to the kind of ideal relationship that marriage is intended to protect. I think it is obvious that they can, and on those grounds I think it is appropriate for homosexual marriages to take place.

Liberals try to avoid the "purpose" argument because they think it will automatically allow the conservatives to win. It won't. It just makes arguing about it a bit harder.

Dammit, I hate it when I agree with Agathon.

[Jon Miller]

I have given real life examples, situations, and have referenced (remembered) statistics to back up my claims. You guys have done known of that. While I admit it isn't a strong basis, you who are challenging the status quo should at least reference some real observation as well as give counter examples to me issues.

This is standard debating, not just claim that you are logical or that I have cultural bias.

Additionally, I have read the statistics in many (Science level) articles that show that standard marriage is good for those who engage in it. I have seen the same sort of statistics that show that bigamistic marriage is bad for those who engage in it. Please provide evidence that it is wrong? Or at least, reasons why the current evidence is wrong?

I am not saying that current marriage is perfect. I am just saying that evidence shows that it is good for the people involved. They report being happier, living longer, their relationships last longer than those who don't marry, etc. On the other hand, comparing those who live in plural relationships and not married, and those who live in a 2 person relationship and not married, the person who lives in a 2 person relationship has that relationship last longer than those who live in many person relationships (this is all without marriage).

Now I don't have these references on hand. But I am still giving them as examples, and I hold the status quo posiiton. So it is up to you to find evidence that is a counter example to the evidence that I am claiming.

You can't just claim logic and throw it all away.

JM

[Heraclitus]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
My memory is that psychologists say incest is mentally/emotionally bad.

Again check what science said about Homosexuality 40 years ago.


Dude sicence dosne't happen in a void, it is affected by culture. Only hard evidence can overcome cultural bias and even then it may take a long time. I mean honestly how many of the people who have studied incest have not had prejudice against it, and how many have actually had a good opinon of it when they started their study? Now compare this situation with the myriad of behaviours people consider good and *want* to prove are healthy and beneficial.

I am very pessimistic about psychologys status as a science, much more so ever since I have begun studying it out of curiosity.

[Heraclitus]

Originally posted by Wezil
I suspect there isn't much research on the topic anyway as incestuous relationships are legally and socially taboo. You wouldn't get much of a sample size.

Most of the google hits I find on the subject deal with child abuse.

QFT

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Heraclitus


I think I may have a fair claim to that title. And even if I don't (yet) I can assure you a lot of time and study have been spent on my part to try to make my own ethical system consistent, logical and grounded in reality... and even more time has been spent trying to convince others to do the same.

Then why are you siding with Ming who is entirely not grounded in reality.

I have studied group marriage as practiced in the US and in other countries. I have studied traditional bigamist practices, as well as seen statistics about group relationships in the western countries.

While I don't have my reference list with me, it requires some response other the "you are a biased Christian".

Either give me reasons why my examples are wrong, or give sources that show that my exampels are wrong.

JM

[Aeson]

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Heraclitus


Again check what science said about Homosexuality 40 years ago.


Dude sicence dosne't happen in a void, it is affected by culture. Only hard evidence can overcome cultural bias and even then it may take a long time. I mean honestly how many of the people who have studied incest have not had prejudice against it, and how many have actually had a good opinon of it when they started their study? Now compare this situation with the myriad of behaviours people consider good and *want* to prove are healthy and beneficial.

I am very pessimistic about psychologys status as a science, much more so ever since I have begun studying it out of curiosity.

It's not very well developed, but isn't considering it and looking at it a lot better than going based purely on logic and your own gut?

Logic gave us epicycles... observation (even poor observation) gave us the foundations of celestial mechanics.

Yeah it wasn't quite right. And we have changed our understanding a bit since than. But going the way of logic without observation would be a deadend.

JM

[Heraclitus]

Originally posted by Jon Miller

You can't just claim logic and throw it all away.

JM

I'm not, I'm asking you to be rational. I never said there is only one way to have a consisten ethical system within what we know about our universe. There are several valid hypothesies, just don't combine ones that have nothing to do with each other.

Your current position is in conflict with several stances you have made in the past. If we had about an hour of time I could point out what logically follows from your curent position, and I can tell you you would not agree with it. I am only hoping you yourself see a few contradictions with other ethical dylemas, since for me to drag those out would be threadjacking.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Aeson

Basically, you have ignored my examples.

So either you think I am making stuff up/misremembering the papers I have read. Or you and Ming are thinking that this is some sort of "No, you are wrong and I am right " match.

JM