CA Overturns Gay Marriage Ban!

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by snoopy369
The interesting question would be whether CA's constitutional amendment, if passed, would violate the US constitution (since it is not permitted to). This could be the boon that allows it to be challenged in FEDERAL court - in the California circuit, which will probably be the best place THAT could happen, I'd think...

I think its likely that would also be a 5-4 decision but this time ruling against gay rights (and that would be an enormous setback). IMO, this question should not be decided by the courts since I think it's a lose-lose situation. OTOH, I'm not gay so perhaps its not my battle to fight and I should merely support people closer to the issue who I respect, such as Wittlich.

[Heraclitus]

Originally posted by Badfuzzy
You could define God as the Universe and be done with it.

Then you don't have God you have the Universe.

In any case disproving its existance should be a trivial matter.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Heraclitus
All we have to do is eliminate the role of creator and prove that physical laws can not be changed.

Once the above has been done God is no longer omnipotent and he is no longer the creator, if both are true, then why call him God?

Umm, I don't think you understand what God is suppose to be in the Christian view. How can you prove that God didn't just say "these are the physical laws, this is where everything is, this is everything's history, at the year 2000" and then watch the Universe continue from there? If you beleive in the standard view of the Christian God, there is no reason the universe had to exist 5 seconds ago.

About the only way I can think of to disprove Christianity (still wouldn't be God, but a pretty big one) would be time travel or something to disprove Christ.

JM

[Heraclitus]

Originally posted by Jon Miller


Umm, I don't think you understand what God is suppose to be in the Christian view. How can you prove that God didn't just say "these are the physical laws, this is where everything is, this is everything's history, at the year 2000" and then watch the Universe continue from there? If you beleive in the standard view of the Christian God, there is no reason the universe had to exist 5 seconds ago.

If you remember I said my God is partialy compatible with the Chatolic Christian god.

I'd even go as far as caling myself a Christian, of sorts.


I understand what you are saying very very well and have been through it several times.

Originally posted by Jon Miller

About the only way I can think of to disprove Christianity (still wouldn't be God, but a pretty big one) would be time travel or something to disprove Christ.

But you see if God leaves no proof for his existance this provides an interesting question, if he does exist, did he mean us to belive in him?

[Wittlich]

Originally posted by SpencerH


...OTOH, I'm not gay so perhaps its not my battle to fight and I should merely support people closer to the issue who I respect, such as Wittlich.

Absolutely! for myself and other gays/lesbians - It is something that has to be addressed and not "brushed under the rug" as it has been in the past.

[Wezil]

Geez. The gays come out of the closet and already they're demanding rights!

[Wittlich]

Originally posted by Wezil
Geez. The gays come out of the closet and already they're demanding rights!

You are simply EVIL Wezil.

(Besides, I've been out of the closet for a number of years now - right after I retired from a 20-year Army service career).

[EPW]

Originally posted by Heraclitus


Then you don't have God you have the Universe.

In any case disproving its existance should be a trivial matter.

Thats the point, except proving its existence, not disproving, is trivial.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Wittlich


You are simply EVIL Wezil.

I was going to leave the second smiley off. I realised you would understand but I wasn't sure about others. I didn't need the abuse.

I'm sure we could find some disagreement on some "gay" issues but this probably isn't one of them. I'm in the group that would make marriage much less restrictive.

(Besides, I've been out of the closet for a number of years now - right after I retired from a 20-year Army service career).

I have a gay sibling (20ish now) that came out when he was around 14 or 15. It is so much easier these days I think, although still a long way from where it needs to be. My father is still in denial. As long as the topic is not raised peace is preserved.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
Sometimes I have responded to one, sometimes to the other, and sometimes to both, so that I make a few less posts and don't repeat myself as often.

That is fine so long as you don't confuse who you are talking to, or what they've said, with others. Which is what you did when you lumped me in with Ming (and nebulously defined "others") about "changing society".

(I haven't read everything Ming said, so I can't speak about whether you were topical in regards to him or not in that instance. I certainly can't speak for the nebulously defined "others".)

If you tell me I am wrong in saying something, and then respond to something completely different, yeah, I will be confused about what you said.

You said that incestuous relationships were unhealthy. I pointed out that not all incestuous relationships are unhealthy to illustrate the fallacious nature of your absolute statement. That is what we were discussing, yet you deemed it necessary to lump me in with Ming as you replied about various other issues, offer arguments against other subjects entirely, and wholly ignore the actual statement I had made.

I am not sure if this happened, but I admit that it could.

I'm glad you can admit you don't know what has happened in our discussion.

And no, that has nothing to do with a '6th grade reading compreshension' (really, do we have to get to personal insults?)

I am sorry if that makes you feel bad, but it is the simple truth.

"I am saying that it is fundamentally unheathly." Jon

"There doesn't have to be anything inherently unhealthy with such a relationship." - Aeson

"Please refer to majority opinion among experts?" - Jon

"If any "experts" say that all incestuous relationships must be unhealthy for all parties involved, they are idiots. " - Aeson

"Are you saying that there is no science to psychology? I admit it isn't very well developed." - Jon, utterly refuting his absolutist depiction of incestuous relationships

I stand by that all incestuous relationships (as I have defined in this thread) are unhealthy, based on my current understanding of psychology.

^^ Jon back to pretending that incestuous relationships are absolutely "unhealthy". Even though the science you supposedly base this assertion off of is admittedly "[not] very well developed".

I suppose we're supposed to accept your absolutism based on shaky science? And you call yourself a "scientist".

The intellectually honest position to take in this specific matter is that which Ming has taken (by and large... like I said, I haven't read it all ). That being, that you cannot say that all relationships of the various types will all conform to the others of the same type. There is certainly not the science necessary to make such absolute predictions, and are even examples (in some cases, numerous) of occurrences which do not fit your absolutist view.

Yeah, you say it is all cultural taboo.

No. I said cultural taboo is a factor.

I'm not an idiot who thinks such a thing as the health of a relationship can only be impacted by one factor. You are the one taking that position.

I don't know of any culturals where siblings having relationships were encouraged that were successful so I have a hard time responding to it.

Again you show your complete lack of understanding about what has been said. I specified "cousin-cousin" and "first cousin" when bringing up the examples.

"In some cultures cousin-cousin relations are viewed as taboo. In others, first cousins are perfectly acceptable. In the cultures where it's not taboo, there aren't the unhealthy side effects of guilt and shame." - Aeson

This is what I'm talking about with "6th grade reading comprehension". You can't even differentiate between "siblings" and "first cousins" or "cousin-cousin".

I did! That is what I meant by saying that you don't even read my posts. I said that the unhealthiness was due to emotional sibling relationship, not biological sibling relationship. Which makes sense since my concern is emtion health rather then physical health (which is with children).

You did not address my statements though. You made something up to argue against.

I was talking about the effect of cultural taboo in such a case, and you didn't address that in the least. You just threw up your emotional/physical health dichotomy strawman and ran away. I did not specify physical health, yet your only argument you offered in response was against using physical health, which I had not done. Your response was irrelevant.

I understand why you don't want to address it though. The simple fact is, these examples show us clearly that there doesn't have to be inherent emotional unhealthiness in this type of incestuous relationship. If there were emotional unhealthiness inherent in the relationship, it would manifest itself regardless of whether or not the nature of the relation was known.

The emotional unhealthiness appears in such cases to be due to the stigma, which is not a necessary part of the relationship or even society. When removed (or never added in the first place) the lack of stigma leaves the couple without the damaging shame, castigation, and guilt that the taboo held by society will heap upon them once the fact is known.

That is slightly higher level than 6th grade comprehension. So if you can't understand it, no worries. Get back to me in a few years.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
None of you have referenced seeing any.

Thus you assume no one has. Amazing. I didn't say, "I didn't win the lottery today". That must mean I won the lottery? WOOT!!!

Just saying that you saw some would probably make me go look up a study showing that you were wrong.

You can't find a valid study which would support your assertion that all incestuous relationships must be inherently unhealthy. You are trying to pretend that a shaky and formative area of investigation has proved absolutes that you are espousing about issues where we don't even know what many of the variables are, not to mention how to control for them.

On the other hand, I can find cases where incestuous relationships were not unhealthy in and of themselves as you claim must be the case. They illustrate clearly the fact that it is possible for an incestuous relationship to be a healthy relationship.

Some of those examples have been posted on Poly in the past even.

[Wittlich]

Originally posted by Wezil

I was going to leave the second smiley off. I realised you would understand but I wasn't sure about others. I didn't need the abuse.

No harm done - I definitely took no disrespect from your post. I thought it was rather funny, actually.

I'm sure we could find some disagreement on some "gay" issues but this probably isn't one of them. I'm in the group that would make marriage much less restrictive.

I have a gay sibling (20ish now) that came out when he was around 14 or 15. It is so much easier these days I think, although still a long way from where it needs to be. My father is still in denial. As long as the topic is not raised peace is preserved.

Alas, I know what your younger brother is going through. I have heard this same story multiple times. I consider myself rather lucky since my mother was warning my father of this issue ever since I was 5 years old (before even I knew) - but a mother's intuition should never be disregarded.

I came out to my parents when I was around 21. Thank-God, I have a healthy and close relationship with them to this day.

On a caveat - Gays/Lesbians who state/believe that their parents "don't know" - PLEASE! They raised you, they know. They might be in denial - but they know the truth just the same.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Aeson
That is fine so long as you don't confuse who you are talking to, or what they've said, with others. Which is what you did when you lumped me in with Ming (and nebulously defined "others") about "changing society".

You told me you disagreed with me.

(I haven't read everything Ming said, so I can't speak about whether you were topical in regards to him or not in that instance. I certainly can't speak for the nebulously defined "others".)

OK.

You said that incestuous relationships were unhealthy. I pointed out that not all incestuous relationships are unhealthy to illustrate the fallacious nature of your absolute statement. That is what we were discussing, yet you deemed it necessary to lump me in with Ming as you replied about various other issues, offer arguments against other subjects entirely, and wholly ignore the actual statement I had made.

I only lumped you in with Ming when you replied that I was wrong when I was responding to him.

I'm glad you can admit you don't know what has happened in our discussion.

If so, it was brought about by you not being clear in our discussion.

I am sorry if that makes you feel bad, but it is the simple truth.

So patronizing!
[quote]
"I am saying that it is fundamentally unheathly." Jon

"There doesn't have to be anything inherently unhealthy with such a relationship." - Aeson

"Please refer to majority opinion among experts?" - Jon

"If any "experts" say that all incestuous relationships must be unhealthy for all parties involved, they are idiots. " - Aeson

"Are you saying that there is no science to psychology? I admit it isn't very well developed." - Jon, utterly refuting his absolutist depiction of incestuous relationships

^^ Jon back to pretending that incestuous relationships are absolutely "unhealthy". Even though the science you supposedly base this assertion off of is admittedly "[not] very well developed".

I suppose we're supposed to accept your absolutism based on shaky science? And you call yourself a "scientist".
[quote]
Would you have preferred I used "based on current evidence and theory, all incestuous relationships are unhealthy? That is what scientists mean when they say something. I am surprised that you needed the qualifier stated explicitly (especially because I implied it).

Do you call yourself an adult?

The intellectually honest position to take in this specific matter is that which Ming has taken (by and large... like I said, I haven't read it all ). That being, that you cannot say that all relationships of the various types will all conform to the others of the same type. There is certainly not the science necessary to make such absolute predictions, and are even examples (in some cases, numerous) of occurrences which do not fit your absolutist view.

This is the point that I have been trying to make. Statistically it is true that something is bad. That means that most of the time it is bad, and since most of the time it is bad, then the government should not support it. This is not saying that there is never excepts. I never claimed that there wasn't ever a 3 person relationship where everyone was treated equally and were emotionally healthy that was stable. I said it wasn't very likely, and most of the time it isn't stable and is emotionally unhealthy.

I don't think you really understand what statistics is?
[quote]
No. I said cultural taboo is a factor.

I'm not an idiot who thinks such a thing as the health of a relationship can only be impacted by one factor. You are the one taking that position.
[\quote]
Once more name calling. I am repeating what I have read in psychology books. Namely that incest is a problem. (I haven't read any study on it either)

Since they don't qualify it, I am not qualifying it.

If it isn't just cultural taboo, in what other ways is it emotionally damaging. Are some of those ways inherent to the sibling (for example) relationship.

Again you show your complete lack of understanding about what has been said. I specified "cousin-cousin" and "first cousin" when bringing up the examples.

"In some cultures cousin-cousin relations are viewed as taboo. In others, first cousins are perfectly acceptable. In the cultures where it's not taboo, there aren't the unhealthy side effects of guilt and shame."

This is what I'm talking about with "6th grade reading comprehension". You can't even differentiate between "siblings" and "first cousins" or "cousin-cousin".

So I have the 6th grade reading level, but you fail in reading so that you don't see that I have already addressed this?

You did not address my statements though. You made something up to argue against.

I was talking about the effect of cultural taboo in such a case, and you didn't address that in the least. You just threw up your emotional/physical health dichotomy strawman and ran away. I did not specify physical health, yet your only argument you offered in response was against using physical health, which I had not done. Your response was irrelevant.

Ah, so you didn't understand me. I thought that might be the case.

I understand why you don't want to address it though. The simple fact is, these examples show us clearly that there doesn't have to be inherent emotional unhealthiness in this type of incestuous relationship. If there were emotional unhealthiness inherent in the relationship, it would manifest itself regardless of whether or not the nature of the relation was known.

Huh? I now am beginning to think that you haven't understood one thing that I have said. I pointed out that the issue was with the sibling relationship (or parent child). I pointed this out again and again, yet you continue to ignore me, and now accuse me of not comprehending what you wrote.

Why would emotional unhealthiness, which is caused by relationships, manifest itself where no emotional relationship has existed?

The emotional unhealthiness appears in such cases to be due to the stigma, which is not a necessary part of the relationship or even society. When removed (or never added in the first place) the lack of stigma leaves the couple without the damaging shame, castigation, and guilt that the taboo held by society will heap upon them once the fact is known.

Bad conclusion. As I pointed out, this is emotional harm, why are you considering biological relationship and not emotional relationship?

That is slightly higher level than 6th grade comprehension. So if you can't understand it, no worries. Get back to me in a few years.

At least I am an adult.

JM

[Jon Miller]

Evidence:

"The Westermarck effect is named after the Finnish anthropolgist, Edward Westermarck who in his "The History of Human Marriage" (1891) proposed the following theory; that humans avoid mating with individuals with whom they have been closely associated in childhood.

Sigmund Freud dismissed this idea as "preposterous" and advanced a different hyothesis, namely that heterosexual lust between family members was the norm; "The first choice of object in mankind is regularly an incestous one, directed to the mother and sister of men, and the most stringent prohibitions are required to prevent this sustained infantile tendency from being carried into effect." James Fraser, the author of "The Golden Bough" agreed with Freud, arguing that if the Westermarck effect existed there would no need of an incest taboo, and since such taboos were widespread there was no effect.

So the ideas of Westermarck were rejected and those of Sigmund Freud became the orthodox view until the late twentieth century when evidence began emerging as to which of the two competing theories were correct.

Arthur Wolf carried out a study of 14,200 Taiwanese minor marriages between 1957 and 1995. (A minor marriage is a Chinese custom by which a family adopts an infant girl, with the intention of later marrying the girl to their son.) Wolf discovered that the children in question often strongly resisted the idea of marrying when they were of age, that they were three times likely to become divorced, produced 40% fewer children, and the wives were three times more likely to commit adultery. He identified the key factor as the closeness of the relationship during the first thirty months of the lives of both partners. The more time they had spent together during those crucial first thirty months, the more likely they were to reject the idea of marriage and more likely any subsequent marriage would fail.

Further evidence arose with the work of Joseph Shepher in 1960s in Israeli Kibbutzim. There children where raised collectively in creches, and Shepher found that not only did children raised in such an enviroment not marry within their kibbutz peer group, but that there were no instances of any sexual contact whatsover between peer group members.

The evidence therefore shows that Sigmund Freud was wrong and that Edward Westermarck was correct. Science has yet to determine how the Westermack effect originated and neither has the stimulus that triggers the effect been pinpointed, but it is reasonable to now state that humanity operates by a simple rule of thumb whereby individuals inherently reject the idea of sexual intercourse with those with whom they have been in close contact with in early childood."

[Jon Miller]

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?postid=5298796#post5298796

To show the post where I clearly stated what I was talking about with regards to incest that was not read by Aeson.

JM