[LukeCato]

Discourse is a big step in this day and age, I'm impressed that this is happening and I want to go in with good points - I've already done plenty of reading and got some good questions laid out but I want to hear some thoughts.

My premise is this: Starting with the gay movement (more or less), everything has started to degenerate, rationally speaking. So imagine that you could go back, 15-20 years, before all this SJW madness started, what would you say to people whose main point is that they're marginalized and not treated like the rest of society?

[Phoenix]

I'd point out that they'd been marginalized pretty much everywhere at all times. If it's so prevalent across cultures, it's rooted in biology, and I'd put the question to the interlocutor to explain why those specific forms of marginalization exist so consistently across mankind.

[Jones]

The herd would marginalize non-heterosexuals because it is a detriment to the foundation of society.

If the natural law is to procreate and duplicate one's genetic code through reproduction, then anal sex doesn't procreate and is dangerously dirty, more so than regular sex and it's diseases.

Probably to the betterment of themselves, non-heterosexuals have been marginalized. There's a lot more excitement involved when an one engage's in an act that's taboo. The internalization one's sexuality (and, perhaps, frustration) has driven many to success and also create beautiful works of art. Who better to create and innovate than people who do not produce children and who also must hide their sexuality for others? Da Vinci, Shakespeare (rumor), Caesare, and Alan Turing to name a few.

[ElFlaco]

(11-14-2016 02:32 PM)LukeCato Wrote:  

I've already done plenty of reading and got some good questions laid out but I want to hear some thoughts.

I'd recommend reading the best arguments on the other side. That means going to original sources. Then try to identify any contradictions or errors there. You won't be persuasive if you're just arguing based on the logic of your side. For example, people who are not religious will not be persuaded by religious arguments. On the contrary, they'll discount everything you say. To put it another way, you need to craft your argument based on the audience.

Also, be familiar with the best arguments against your position. Know how they are likely to respond.

Finally, find points of agreement (if there are any) and be sure to mention those. You might even start with these. And remember that you're not targeting the true believers on the other side but rather those who are closer to the middle.

[heavy]

Freedom...if you get into the public policy of the argument.

Government is the only institute that can legally use force (jail, guns, etc) to make adults do things.

It's best to keep that power limited. It's best not to force 320 million people across an entire continent with incredibly varied demographics how to feel about gays/lesbians/trans/etc.

States create laws that prevent people from harming one another. States create laws that protect private property.

Why do you need more laws than that? Or on a different level, why would we want Federal laws for special gay/lesb/trans, when they don't even make the most violent offense laws.

And what Phoenix said. That's gold.

[LukeCato]

(11-14-2016 02:36 PM)Phoenix Wrote:  

I'd point out that they'd been marginalized pretty much everywhere at all times. If it's so prevalent across cultures, it's rooted in biology, and I'd put the question to the interlocutor to explain why those specific forms of marginalization exist so consistently across mankind.

This is very good, I like it a lot

[LukeCato]

(11-14-2016 03:04 PM)ElFlaco Wrote:  

(11-14-2016 02:32 PM)LukeCato Wrote:  

I've already done plenty of reading and got some good questions laid out but I want to hear some thoughts.

I'd recommend reading the best arguments on the other side. That means going to original sources. Then try to identify any contradictions or errors there. You won't be persuasive if you're just arguing based on the logic of your side. For example, people who are not religious will not be persuaded by religious arguments. On the contrary, they'll discount everything you say. To put it another way, you need to craft your argument based on the audience.

Also, be familiar with the best arguments against your position. Know how they are likely to respond.

Finally, find points of agreement (if there are any) and be sure to mention those. You might even start with these. And remember that you're not targeting the true believers on the other side but rather those who are closer to the middle.

Yeah, good points, also about the audience. I have been reading more gay propaganda that ever, it's actually pretty repetitive, but helps with prep.

[ElFlaco]

(11-14-2016 02:36 PM)Phoenix Wrote:  

I'd point out that they'd been marginalized pretty much everywhere at all times. If it's so prevalent across cultures, it's rooted in biology, and I'd put the question to the interlocutor to explain why those specific forms of marginalization exist so consistently across mankind.

1. This almost sounds like an argument for the other side, doesn't it? Pointing out that a group has always been marginalized engenders sympathy and compassion. (People born with physical deformities have always been marginalized historically; we now see that as wrong.)

2. How do you see the other side responding to the marginalization argument? There'd probably be a response along the lines of 'biology is not destiny'. They'd outline the ways that humans have either ignored, overcome and controlled our biology for the better. Those are the arguments you need to be ready to answer.

(11-14-2016 04:00 PM)LukeCato Wrote:  

I have been reading more gay propaganda that ever, it's actually pretty repetitive, but helps with prep.

If what you're reading strikes you as propaganda, then find better arguments. Not their weakest arguments. Their best ones. Then analyze them and find their weaknesses. You can't really debate until you understand how your opponent thinks. Good luck.

[heavy]

Good point ElFlaco. Pay attention to the premise of the argument. That's crucial here. Laws meaning Federal or municipal? Are the intention/thought laws (think hate crimes or hiring laws) or are they concrete, like you have to have a trans bathroom option in a place of business?

Don't let them conflate a legal debate with a debate about being pro or against gay/lesb/bi/tran. This isn't about whether we accept them as people.

The point Phoenix and I made go hand in hand, in this regard. Neither argument says that natural law (regarding LGBT) is good or right, but that it might not make sense to enforce laws that don't align with natural law. (correct if I'm wrong Phoenix).

The Federal control issue
For instance with my point, you can believe in gay marriage and/or special trans laws, but not believe that the Federal government should have anything to do with it. At its highest, they should be handled at State levels.

With the point Phoenix makes, I'd say it's rooted in biology (it's a weird glitch*). When you take the freedom of a large group of people away to, say, not want marriage licenses issued to gay or lesbian couples in their state, you'll have issues because it's so ingrained in our biology. There are a lot of people, maybe even half the country, who really don't like gay marriage. That's not good.

Should we use natural law
In my opinion, the "natural law vs other" argument (in regards to LGBT) is a tough one to make. In our country, we already have free speech. You can't kill somebody or take their property legally. And all the Bill of Rights. There's nothing in our country right now that prevents someone freedom to live the life he/she/it wants. If there's an anti sodomy law in your municipality, you can always move a town over. It's tough to make a really solid stance for or against natural law.

If the argument is for/against gay marriage, it's another tough one. I believe marriage is the best institution we have to promote healthy families, thus healthy society. So M-W. If gay people need insurance, that's an insurance issue, not a marriage issue. If they want to file taxes jointly, that's a tax/IRS issue. It's simply the easiest way to define a viable family relationship.

I don't really want to live in a community with a bunch of gays/lesbians/trans...but I also don't want my community passing laws that target them.

What really matters is Federal control
The marriage issue pales in comparison to the underlying States' rights issue, simply because once States are given their rights back, the marriage issue outrage goes away.

[Phoenix]

(11-14-2016 04:02 PM)ElFlaco Wrote:  

(11-14-2016 02:36 PM)Phoenix Wrote:  

I'd point out that they'd been marginalized pretty much everywhere at all times. If it's so prevalent across cultures, it's rooted in biology, and I'd put the question to the interlocutor to explain why those specific forms of marginalization exist so consistently across mankind.

1. This almost sounds like an argument for the other side, doesn't it? Pointing out that a group has always been marginalized engenders sympathy and compassion. (People born with physical deformities have always been marginalized historically; we now see that as wrong.)

2. How do you see the other side responding to the marginalization argument? There'd probably be a response along the lines of 'biology is not destiny'. They'd outline the ways that humans have either ignored, overcome and controlled our biology for the better. Those are the arguments you need to be ready to answer.

1. People born with deformities are still marginalized, now we just have to pay lip service to their plight. It's never the deformed guy with social popularity, it's the healthy tall athletic guy. It's never the mentally retarded guy, it's the witty guy. It's never the ugly girl, it's the pretty girl.

My point is that the left gets to keep the topic in the realm of empathy. They kind of imply there is no justification for this behaviour, so it's nothing but cruelty with no benefit. They can't be allowed to get away with this.

I'd lead in with rhetorical questions of examples of situations that are cruel but beneficial.
Is it not cruel to have sports competitions? That we show some people they are worse than everybody else?
Is it not cruel to have beauty competitions? That make the winners so happy, and that some women can't ever win because they are too ugly?
Is it not cruel to have entrance exams? That we condemn some people to a worse life than others because they are too stupid?

I'd do as many of them as possible, to remind the left that there is some fundamental aspect of life they are refusing to accept.

I'd then start to explain the reason each and every form of prejudice exists.
[basically it all ends in: to sustain life; these are innate parts of our existence that are required to keep us existing, because genetics are always decaying due to entropy so we need to push weak genes to the edges, and because social order is needed to maintain strong birth rates (and it too is always attacked by entropy)]

Finally I'd end on something like: So do you now see the nature of your beliefs? And the nature of mine?
The future of humanity in your regime is fatter, uglier and more deformed, lazier, stupider, shorter, and more sexually dysfunctional etc.... Are people overall happier in this future? And you hold this to your heart as a virtue?
The future of humanity under mine is stronger, more beautiful and handsome, smarter, taller, and more fertile etc.... And you throw that to the ground as vice?
Your beliefs are either born of shortsightedness or failing to understand basic biology, and nothing else.

2. Yes and when you answer them you can't pull punches. For instance, if they take the topic to gender roles, you have to unflinchingly say "no it hasn't been for the better, it has been harmful, and here is why". You can't "half Right". You have to "full Right" if you're going to do it.

OP might also want to consider raising the question of the origin of homosexuality (unlikely to be strongly genetic due to selection pressure, and isn't choice, which leaves only one thing...). That ought to make quite a few uncomfortable.

[naswanji]

I wrote up a more extensive take here:

thread-12824...#pid210400

But your approach really depends on the actual question of the debate.

One thing to watch out for is that the argument for gay rights is always made from a utilitarian premise -- i.e. the idea that as long as something doesn't hurt anyone, it should be permitted. Since the harms of gay marriage are diffuse, while the victims of its prohibition are concentrated, if you get sucked into arguing the issue from the perspective of relative harms, you will lose the debate. This is basically what happened in the US, where opponents of gay marriage couldn't formulate a concise objection that wasn't ultimately based on religion.

Because it's a secular theory of morality and easy to grasp, almost all public debate in the West is ultimately argued in utilitarian terms. Hence why the traditional/conservative position is constantly losing ground.

But utilitarianism is not the only option. If you're interested in a theory of morality that upholds a higher ideal of the human being (in line with religious teaching) but that is couched in secular terms, I would encourage you to look into virtue ethics. Its modern champion is Alasdair Macintyre, in his book "After Virtue," but this approach ultimately goes back to Aristotle (who then influenced Christianity in this).

See here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtue_ethics

https://www.amazon.com/After-Virtue-Stud...0268035040

[ElFlaco]

(11-15-2016 04:00 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  

I'd lead in with rhetorical questions of examples of situations that are cruel but beneficial ... I'd then start to explain the reason each and every form of prejudice exists.

All good points in your response. I think the best tack depends on what the debater hopes to accomplish. The goal is presumably to 'win' the debate, not just put forth the arguments you find the most convincing. (You might be familiar with Intelligence Squared, which hosts debates where the audience votes before and after in order to see which side was more persuasive.) With modern audiences, arguing that cruelty or prejudice are justified or legitimate at times is going to be a hard sell. I don't predict victory with that unless it is packaged compassionately somehow. Again, it goes back to the audience, who they are and what the debater hopes to achieve.

[Phoenix]

^ But like I described, it can be viewed as more compassionate on a multi-generational time frame.

[Wutang]

I'd be wary of using the "it's been marginalized across all cultures" line of argument. I can already predict that someone is going to bring up the Greeks and Romans and most likely some obscure primitive tribal somewhere in South America or Africa or in the Pacific Islands where it doesn't apply. It is true with the Greeks and Romans that they didn't sanctify gay marriage but there was still lots of buggering going around.

[Meister Eckhart]

The biggest thrust you can make is by defining what marriage is from a historical perspective. Gay marriage won because marriage has been overly sentimentalized and Hallmarked to the point where its a giant feel-good emotional mess.

The point is, marriage was always about children and the formation of families. Anyone who looks at Medieval history can see this and knows this. Nobles married for power, for resources, and for the creation of children that would unite the families. The ancients did this too, Romans married off their sisters/daughters for political reasons all the time. Nobody expected them to be madly in love, but it was expected that they did their marital duties.

Instead, we're witnessing the gradual process of romantic love being ensconced as the be all and end all of relationships. It's why arranged marriages fell out of practice, why divorce was legalized, and now why nobody can argue against gay marriage. Because after all, what sense of duty and obligation is left? Once it became nothing more than, "I want to do X, because it makes me feel happy", then that's when the argument was lost.

Most people don't make this argument exactly for that reason, because it places a great burden on the public that the majority doesn't want to bear. Nobody seriously wants to revisit Family Law, despite how screwed up it is because it might make them inconvenienced and uncomfortable.

[Rob Banks]

Here is an essay by science fiction author John C. Wright, called "On the Sexual Nature of Man," in which he outlines why traditional sexual morality is preferable, and specifically does not use religious arguments. In it, he compares homosexuality to incest and polygamy:

http://www.scifiwright.com/2014/06/on-th...re-of-man/

Quote:

In my youth, my state of mind back when I was a card-carrying member of the Sexual Revolution was as follows: Robert Heinlein and Ayn Rand, not to mention Hugh Hefner, had persuaded me to adopt the moral standard that all sexual acts were licit if between consenting adults and creating no harm to others.

The libertarian writers in particular urged me (with success) to adopt that standard that the laws must place all matters of sexual morality outside their orbit, except that marriage should be treated like a contract, revocable at will, and containing only those provisions the private parties shall mutually agree, the clauses being severable at will.

A logical outgrowth of these two conclusions was that homosexuality, both the desire and the sexual acts, were licit, as was also incest between two adults, or polygamy between more than two.

Let us call this the Libertine position. Although other more accurate and less flattering terms suggest themselves, I don’t want to cloud the waters with a merely terminological dispute.

I believe that any sexual acts between people who ultimately cannot conceive a child together are unnatural and should be frowned upon. Pedophilia (i.e. sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children), bestiality, and transsexualism are also unnatural for the same reason. It doesn't matter if it's "consensual" or not.

As far as the law is concerned, I agree that it shouldn't be the government's responsibility to put homosexuals in prison. I don't want to live in a country where the bedroom police check people's assholes for cum. I think Russia is a good example of how the government should handle this issue. Homosexuals are not punished, but displaying gay propaganda is prohibited in public places or places where children are assumed to be present. The Russian government considers homosexual propaganda to be a public health issue, as it encourages the spread of HIV.

[Phoenix]

(11-16-2016 02:37 AM)Rob Banks Wrote:  

Here is an essay by science fiction author John C. Wright, called "On the Sexual Nature of Man," in which he outlines why traditional sexual morality is preferable, and specifically does not use religious arguments. In it, he compares homosexuality to incest and polygamy:

http://www.scifiwright.com/2014/06/on-th...re-of-man/

Quote:

In my youth, my state of mind back when I was a card-carrying member of the Sexual Revolution was as follows: Robert Heinlein and Ayn Rand, not to mention Hugh Hefner, had persuaded me to adopt the moral standard that all sexual acts were licit if between consenting adults and creating no harm to others.

The libertarian writers in particular urged me (with success) to adopt that standard that the laws must place all matters of sexual morality outside their orbit, except that marriage should be treated like a contract, revocable at will, and containing only those provisions the private parties shall mutually agree, the clauses being severable at will.

A logical outgrowth of these two conclusions was that homosexuality, both the desire and the sexual acts, were licit, as was also incest between two adults, or polygamy between more than two.

Let us call this the Libertine position. Although other more accurate and less flattering terms suggest themselves, I don’t want to cloud the waters with a merely terminological dispute.

I believe that any sexual acts between people who ultimately cannot conceive a child together are unnatural and should be frowned upon. Pedophilia (i.e. sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children), bestiality, and transsexualism are also unnatural for the same reason. It doesn't matter if it's "consensual" or not.

The question then becomes where do you draw the line though. Sex with a condom still looks like natural sex, so it seems more natural, but ultimately it is still degenerate hedonism if we're being honest. It is a decoupling of the pleasure of sex from its natural purpose. Whilst you can rightly argue homosexuality is a mental disorder, can you not argue so too is the use of condoms?

[Rob Banks]

(11-17-2016 10:53 PM)Phoenix Wrote:  

(11-16-2016 02:37 AM)Rob Banks Wrote:  

Here is an essay by science fiction author John C. Wright, called "On the Sexual Nature of Man," in which he outlines why traditional sexual morality is preferable, and specifically does not use religious arguments. In it, he compares homosexuality to incest and polygamy:

http://www.scifiwright.com/2014/06/on-th...re-of-man/

Quote:

In my youth, my state of mind back when I was a card-carrying member of the Sexual Revolution was as follows: Robert Heinlein and Ayn Rand, not to mention Hugh Hefner, had persuaded me to adopt the moral standard that all sexual acts were licit if between consenting adults and creating no harm to others.

The libertarian writers in particular urged me (with success) to adopt that standard that the laws must place all matters of sexual morality outside their orbit, except that marriage should be treated like a contract, revocable at will, and containing only those provisions the private parties shall mutually agree, the clauses being severable at will.

A logical outgrowth of these two conclusions was that homosexuality, both the desire and the sexual acts, were licit, as was also incest between two adults, or polygamy between more than two.

Let us call this the Libertine position. Although other more accurate and less flattering terms suggest themselves, I don’t want to cloud the waters with a merely terminological dispute.

I believe that any sexual acts between people who ultimately cannot conceive a child together are unnatural and should be frowned upon. Pedophilia (i.e. sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children), bestiality, and transsexualism are also unnatural for the same reason. It doesn't matter if it's "consensual" or not.

The question then becomes where do you draw the line though. Sex with a condom still looks like natural sex, so it seems more natural, but ultimately it is still degenerate hedonism if we're being honest. It is a decoupling of the pleasure of sex from its natural purpose. Whilst you can rightly argue homosexuality is a mental disorder, can you not argue so too is the use of condoms?

The difference if a man and woman have sex with a condom, that can eventually lead to a pregnancy and a healthy upbringing for the child. Homosexuality can never lead to a pregnancy. Things like incest and polygamy can lead to pregnancies, but cannot lead to a healthy upbringing for the child.

When a man and woman have protected sex with no intention of ever having a child, it can be considered degenerate to a certain extent. That is why the Catholic Church condemns the use of contraception. Furthermore, when a man and woman have unprotected sex without being married, that can also be considered degenerate because they are potentially bringing a child into the world without a solid family structure.

Any and all sex that deviates from the ideal (married man and woman having unprotected sex to create a child; the woman having no prior sexual partners) can be considered degenerate, to a certain extent. The question is, to what extent.

In short, I do not believe the use of condoms is degenerate if used by a married couple that desires children, (or already has children). All sex outside of marriage is technically degenerate, but homosexuality is far more degenerate since it can never lead to reproduction. Homosexuality is just as degenerate as pedophilia (and I mean true pedophilia; attraction to a post-pubescent girl is not pedophilia) in the sense that neither can ever lead to reproduction.