tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3498725671447004370.post3874995338529559611..comments2023-10-26T07:19:41.446-05:00Comments on Science Avenger: Dennis Prager's Gay Marriage HysteriaScienceAvengerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00855046387193200080noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3498725671447004370.post-55392448864165030412009-05-18T18:18:00.000-05:002009-05-18T18:18:00.000-05:00Well Sean, had you read my entire article, you'd s...Well Sean, had you read my entire article, you'd see that I went through Prager's argument in detail, smothering him with aspersions on his arguments, not his character. And if you read a bit more of my blog, you'd see your grotesque error in describing me as a leftist. I'm a former Republican/libertarian who's aghast at the takeover of my former party by the Palinist/Know Nothings, who, among other intellectual failings, tend to label anyone who disagrees with them on anything as a "leftist". <br /><br />As for religion, the rights don't excuse the wrongs, especially when they are so outnumbered and questionable (your marriage claim being a prime example). Religion is, at its core, fantasy, and pretending fantasy is knowledge is a dangerous game. There's nothing real to be gotten from religion that we can't get from something that is real.ScienceAvengerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00855046387193200080noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3498725671447004370.post-74595148371540355662009-05-18T17:37:00.000-05:002009-05-18T17:37:00.000-05:00I only read a few parts of the argument, and I hav...I only read a few parts of the argument, and I have to agree with Anonymous above... Mr. A has largely ignored the essence of the Prager's position by smothering with aspersions on Prager's motivation and character. I wouldn't characterize yourself as an atheist, Mr. A, so much as a Leftist.. the former having little bearing on your same-sex marriage position, the latter having a definitive effect. <br /><br />I'm a straight, atheist guy, and we would be brain dead not to acknowledge the good effects of religion as much as we tend to illuminate the bad, as much as we would acknowledge the good and bad effects of anything else. Opposite-sex marriage is one of the good things.Seanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17086308143584016025noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3498725671447004370.post-53525344466087487992009-03-09T17:19:00.000-05:002009-03-09T17:19:00.000-05:00Mr. Avenger,When you quoted Prager as saying"Any a...Mr. Avenger,<BR/><BR/>When you quoted Prager as saying<BR/><BR/>"Any advocacy of man-woman marriage alone will be regarded morally as hate speech, and shortly thereafter it will be deemed so in law." <BR/><BR/>and then said<BR/><BR/>"Yes Dennis, the same way any advocacy of same-race marriage is regarded as hate speech…"<BR/><BR/>I did assume that you meant that any advocacy of man-woman marriage alone should be regarded as hate speech in law the same manner that advocacy of same-race marriage is regarded as hate speech in law. If you don't believe that advocacy of a position opposing gay marriage should be regarded as hate speech in law, I'm glad. <BR/><BR/><BR/>In regard to the question to whether there is a fluid dimension to sexuality, I understand your assertion that the orientation is fixed despite the behavior. I think that much of our brain's sexual orientation is fixed on a basic level. Above that there is a fluid dimension of environment, culture and choice shaping who we are and our sexuality included. It's a both/and not either/or. <BR/><BR/>There is much to the brain that is malleable. This fluid dimension is not always something that we feel in a conscious existential way. Rather it is something that most of us walk backwards into as we grow up and our mind adapts to our environment with whatever consciousness we bring to it. Of course a Vegan is a vegan by choice and no one (I don't think) is debating that one is born with a brain orientation to be a Vegan, even though it may feel that way to one who has been a Vegan long enough. <BR/><BR/>Some cultures that are ancient and/or far removed from a history of Christian influence have had common pederasty, polygamy and homosexual behavior. Basic primal orientation aside, we both agree that culture can influence behavior. That dimension of the brain that is malleable is shaped by our behavior, which shapes our worldview. My "man-love Thursday" example was one snap shot of this reality. I raised the issue of Katy Perry because people consume pop-culture when they identify with it. While on is bopping to a song, there is actually a deeper transaction of one's worldview going that one is walking backwards into. <BR/><BR/>Pragers point, and my point is not that all sexual orientation is based only what people do. Rather it is more nuanced: that aspect of sexuality/brain/culture behavior/values that is fluid should be directed toward committed monogamous man-woman relationships. This is partly accomplished by placing a committed man-woman union on a pinnacle above other forms of sexual expression.greg wertimehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15938910026277052482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3498725671447004370.post-10290197619776239942009-03-09T11:52:00.000-05:002009-03-09T11:52:00.000-05:00Greg,For the record I do not support hate crimes l...Greg,<BR/><BR/>For the record I do not support hate crimes legislation, and I find it revealing that you assumed that. Enforcement of current laws against assault, libel, etc., will do just fine.<BR/><BR/>I think you missed my point on Prager's claims about ring companies. I've never seen a racially mixed couple in a ring ad, yet I've never heard of pressure for various forms of legal and cultural affirmative action coming as a result of that, so Prager's claim that it will happen if same sex couples are allowed falls flat. Sure, it could happen, just like lots of affirmative action claims could happen. We'll just fight them one by one. None of that warrants not allowing same sex couples to marry.<BR/><BR/>As far as sexuality goes, I think you are falling into the trap of thinking that sexual orientation is based on what people do. Sure culture can influence behavior (although I fail to see the relevance of your examples), but a homosexual man influenced to have a heterosexual moment is still homosexual, just as a vegan who accidentally eats a bite of beef is still a Vegan. Sexual orientation is what one is, not what one does.ScienceAvengerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00855046387193200080noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3498725671447004370.post-50295066214446968792009-03-08T10:53:00.000-05:002009-03-08T10:53:00.000-05:00You said that it was complete claptrap that an eng...You said that it was complete claptrap that an engagement ring company would be boycotted for its advertising, but Prager does have a point. Since you agree with the imposition of hate speech laws, know that the imposition of a moral vision that says that it is hate to advocate the specialness of man-woman unions will take many forms. Gender feminists have criticized advertising and other things, like Miss America pageants, to make their point in the idea that the personal is political and the cultural is political. So too will those who believe that gender is as superficial as skin color. They will pressure for various forms of legal and cultural affirmative action. It is unknown whether this will happen with engagement ring companies, but it is a possible target.<BR/><BR/>In regard to what you declared as Prager's non sequitor goose egg, Prager is asserting Kinsey's idea of a sexual orientation continuum ranging from completely hetero to completely homo. The question is to what extent this is completely stamped at birth. <BR/><BR/>People are heavily influenced by their culture and environment. People do what people do, and most people are wired to follow the crowd. When Katy Perry sings "I kissed a girl and I liked it" and it rises to the top of our charts, it is a small but important anecdotal example of this fluid aspect of sexuality. The existence of ancient cultures with pederasty and what the U.S. military has observed in Afganistan as "man-love Thursdays" are some evidence for this fluidity. <BR/><BR/>Prager is interpreting this sexual orientation continuum as not wholly and completely fixed from birth, and that this spectrum of orientation represents a fluid dimension of sexuality. Prager is saying that the fluid dimension of that orientation needs to be encouraged in a particular direction toward committed male/female unions.greg wertimehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15938910026277052482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3498725671447004370.post-63398494032256229102009-01-27T12:18:00.000-06:002009-01-27T12:18:00.000-06:00I didn't ignore his premises, I showed that they a...I didn't ignore his premises, I showed that they are arbitrary and factually incorrect. The one you refer to is no exception. Marriage is NOT a religious sacred union. This can be proved true through the trival observation of the number of nonreligious people who get married. Prager is simply pretending reality is other than what it is.<BR/><BR/>That's the trouble with all of Prager's arguments: he assumes everyone sees the world as he does, which makes his arguments sound wonderful to the choir, and absurd to everyone else. Based on that, you'll forgive me if I doubt your self description.ScienceAvengerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00855046387193200080noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3498725671447004370.post-61095899841732531122009-01-27T11:43:00.000-06:002009-01-27T11:43:00.000-06:00I am an agnostic heterosexual male, and I need to ...I am an agnostic heterosexual male, and I need to tell you. Prager's arguments are much more compelling than yours. You ignore his basic premise: Marriage is a religious, sacred union. He never says gays should not be allowed to live with one another, just not be "married." To ignore that is to ignore his entire argument. Also, check your spelling on non sequitor.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3498725671447004370.post-57491180875989141192008-06-08T05:15:00.000-05:002008-06-08T05:15:00.000-05:00I am glad you enjoyed it. Being an atheist, I can...I am glad you enjoyed it. Being an atheist, I can relate in some ways to what it is like to be so discriminated against. But even we are allowed to marry each other.ScienceAvengerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00855046387193200080noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3498725671447004370.post-26374533890990933122008-06-08T00:18:00.000-05:002008-06-08T00:18:00.000-05:00Hello Science Avenger,I got into the discussion on...Hello Science Avenger,<BR/><BR/>I got into the discussion on town hall after it died out apparently.<BR/><BR/>I must applaud you on your analysis of Prager's hate-mongering article.<BR/><BR/>I will never truly understand why so many have such hatred toward gays/lesbians.<BR/><BR/>I am gay and my husband and I were married in Canada on Feb 14, 2005 and we have finally seen the day when CA recognizes our marriage and I can't even begin to tell you how much that means to us and to so many other couples!<BR/><BR/>I can only pray that Prager and people like him don't succeed in stealing that away by putting discrimination into the Constitution.<BR/><BR/>I posted a few responses on the town hall web site under "LoveIsEqual".<BR/><BR/>Again thank you so much.<BR/>Allen & Samuel<BR/>Email: allenmcw@comcast.netAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com