2 ms·

How do you define "baby"?

• ll123 12y ago
  The young offspring of a human
  • coldpie 12y ago
    At what point does a set of reproducing cells become an "offspring"? It's a hard question to answer and there's no bright line. I understand the opposition's argument, and I don't feel nearly as much animosity towards them. There is no legitimate argument against gay marriage.
    • latestrevision 12y ago
      I'm gay (& partnered, fwiw), and I'd have to agree that there certainly aren't any good arguments against gay marriage; at least, not any arguments we'd accept in a wealthy, industrialized, western society at the beginning of this millennium, but do keep in mind that the great, great majority of the world does not agree with that assessment. So, what makes an argument legitimate? In order for one to suggest that there is no legitimate argument against gay marriage, you'd have to rationalize what it is that we in the west know better than those living in less-wealthy, less-industrialized societies outside our corner of the globe.
      • coldpie 12y ago
        I don't know that we need to go that far. In the US we take the stance that people should be free to do what they want unless what they want to do interferes with other people doing what they want. Where people conflict in their desires is where the law comes in to settle the matter. Whether that system is good or not is an open question, I guess, but it's what we have. Using that as a rulestick, no one will be negatively impacted by homosexuals getting married. Studies have been done, plenty of places around the globe have tried it with no negative consequences. The courts agree. There's no government interest in preventing gay marriage.
        • latestrevision 12y ago
          Sure, keeping in mind that I don't disagree with any of that -- is this a stance that we've just adopted within the last ten(ish) years -- because if the issue of gay marriage were really that simple, wouldn't it have always been legal?
          • coldpie 12y ago
            I would argue yes, it should have been. Just like women and minorities should always have had the vote and slavery was always immoral. But they all required periods of strife, and now anyone who argues against those positions is rightly shunned.
      • CamperBob2 12y ago
        In order for one to suggest that there is no legitimate argument against gay marriage, you'd have to rationalize what it is that we in the west know better than those living in less-wealthy, less-industrialized societies outside our corner of the globe. Most of those other societies incorporate substantial religious influence in their legislative and/or judicial processes. It doesn't require "rationalization" to demonstrate that this is harmful to human progress.
        • latestrevision 12y ago
          As an atheist, I agree, but asserting that the rationale behind prohibiting gay marriage is mostly religious isn't supported by evidence. More than a quarter of the world's population lives in countries that are majority-atheist without being any more supportive of gay marriage than those of us in western, more-religious countries.
          • CamperBob2 12y ago
            I'm not aware of any countries that are majority-atheist (maybe Norway?) Any references for that?
            • latestrevision 12y ago
              The classic, easy, example is China. EDIT: Apparently that's a little contentious -- only 47% self-declared atheist (http://redcresearch.ie/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/RED-C-press-release-Religion-and-Atheism-25-7-12.pdf http://redcresearch.ie/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/RED-C-pres...), but given that 9% of those surveyed did not respond to the question, the majority of respondents to this specific survey question did self-proclaim themselves as atheists.
              • CamperBob2 12y ago
                Aren't most religions prohibited in China, though? Those people are basically answering the survey under duress.
• latestrevision 12y ago
  For the record, I don't think the author was actually trying to defend that point, but instead to highlight how when taken out of context or in hindsight any one of our behaviors could in the future be seen as a real, unambiguously "wrong" act.
  • coldpie 12y ago
    Yes, I'm likewise highlighting that there's a gray area in that particular question, unlike the other question.
    • defen 12y ago
      Thought experiment: Let's say hypothetically scientists discovered a drug or "vaccine" that a pregnant woman could take, which would guarantee that a male child of hers would not be gay (I'm operating under the assumption that homosexuality is caused by genetic or environmental factors and is not a free choice of the individual). Would you be opposed to pregnant women taking this drug?