Do you often wish that you were living in Star Trek now?

[BillJ]

Let's assume the latter (and damn the inconsistencies!):
Any society must give preferential treatment to social relations essential for its survival and flourishing - any other strategy leads to negative effects on the society. This, regardless of how many enlightened/optimistic adjectives you use to argue for the contrary.

If we had a small populace and short life-span, you might have a point. But there are seven billion of us, we aren't going away anytime soon short of a major cataclysm.

 

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

But the Vulcans, they need to get cracking. OH woe for K/S in JJ land, there's babies to be made!

 

[BillJ]

But the Vulcans, they need to get cracking. OH woe for K/S in JJ land, there's babies to be made!

Spock will just have to do double-duty.

 

[Stoo]

The rationalization given for the advocacy is that 'all types of sexual relationships are equally good'.
This leads - by a very simple deduction - to advocating for homosexuality, but for polygamy, as well.
If people are advocating for homosexuality, but not for polygamy, that means the rationalization given is not the reason they're advocating for homosexuality, Stoo.
That's logic 101.

Huh? Why? Maybe it just means they haven't given polygamy much thought? It's not a particularly high profile social issue right now.

So yeah I'm having trouble with logic 101. If am telling people FRUIT IS GREAT! EAT BANANAS AND APPLES! and orange farmers say hey what about us, that means I should have also said ORANGES ARE GREAT, not that fruit is actually bad for you.

(also it's not a blanket statement about any kind of sexual relationship ever. The harmful and\or exploitative is still excluded)

BTW, using star trek/etc as a vehicle to promote one's PC beliefs is NOT part of good story-telling.

It shows us a possible better future and gives us cause to reflect on the state of society today. That's quite a valid part of telling us a story.

And the social relations relating to giving birth and raising the next generation ARE essential for a society.

Homosexuality only affects a minority of people, its seems. And even then there are ways for gay couples to be parents, and that will only expand with 24 century tech. The federation is not running out of people.

(if this discussion was about Battlestar Galactica, you'd be closer to having a point)

ps the culture would be an awesome place to live

 

[Edit_XYZ]

The rationalization given for the advocacy is that 'all types of sexual relationships are equally good'.
This leads - by a very simple deduction - to advocating for homosexuality, but for polygamy, as well.
If people are advocating for homosexuality, but not for polygamy, that means the rationalization given is not the reason they're advocating for homosexuality, Stoo.
That's logic 101.

Huh? Why? Maybe it just means they haven't given polygamy much thought? It's not a particularly high profile social issue right now.

Much thought? You actually mean a deduction easy for a 6-year old is 'much thought'?
There's only one category of memes where this blindness to logic and reason holds: religious doctrines.

(also it's not a blanket statement about any kind of sexual relationship ever. The harmful and\or exploitative is still excluded)

Arbitrarily naming homosexuality good/optimistic/enlightened/"better future" as opposed to "the state of society today" and naming polygamy harmful/exploitative.
Well...as said, dogmas are not big on justifications.

And the social relations relating to giving birth and raising the next generation ARE essential for a society.

Homosexuality only affects a minority of people, its seems. And even then there are ways for gay couples to be parents, and that will only expand with 24 century tech. The federation is not running out of people.

(if this discussion was about Battlestar Galactica, you'd be closer to having a point)

Yes, Stoo. Due to the minority practicing it, you can make the case that society can afford to implement your dogma (though you may want to take a look at the decreasing population in the developed world, the aging of society, etc).
What you can't claim is that your dogma is consistent, justified by objective facts, etc.

ps the culture would be an awesome place to live

Indeed it would be.

 

[BillJ]

Yes, Stoo. Due to the minority practicing it, you can make the case that society can afford to implement your dogma (though you may want to take a look at the decreasing population in the developed world, the aging of society, etc).

We are headed north of 9.6 BILLION people by 2050. We probably need more people to not produce offspring.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_growth

You're spewing inaccurate, hate filled non-sense.

 

[Stoo]

Much thought? You actually mean a deduction easy for a 6-year old is 'much thought'?

No, thought as in it's not on the social radar much right now. Which I think I said already. Maybe in 100 years there'll be some big demand for legalised polygamy and a whole new debate.

Arbitrarily naming homosexuality good/optimistic/enlightened/"better future" as opposed to "the state of society today" and naming polygamy harmful/exploitative.

I haven't named polygamy anything. I've said homosexualty would be considered normal and accepted in trek's future because there's no reason to oppose it.

You speak of dogma but it seems to me you need to make a case as to why homosexuality shouldn't be accepted. (sensible non-authoritarian default is to accept and treat differences normal unless given a reason not to, right?) All you've got so far is the need to keep up populations, which is rather inadequate today and even more so in the world of Star Trek.

 

[Edit_XYZ]

BillJ

And you've just resorted to spewing ad personams based on alarmist predictions about population growth (take a look at population predictions for after 2050/wealthy countries population predictions while you're at it).

To be frank, I didn't think it would take you this long to resort to this tactic. It's standard, after all.
Do tell, BillJ - are you merely annoyed or really angry?

Stoo

The one who makes a proposition (you, in this case) must support it.
Otherwise, I know of a few trillion dogmas that must be implemented alongside yours.
Well, to be frank, you do support it - but all your justification is about belief, and inconsistent belief at that.

 

[BillJ]

BillJ

And you've just resorted to spewing ad personams based on alarmist predictions about population growth (take a look at population predictions for after 2050 if you're at it).

Let me know when the population dwindles back under, say, ten million, then we'll talk.

 

[Stoo]

The one who makes a proposition (you, in this case) must support it.
Otherwise, I know of a few trillion dogmas that must be implemented alongside yours.
Well, to be frank, you do support it - but all your justification is about belief, and inconsistent belief at that.

Since I assume you don't support prejudice just for shits and giggles, and that you do support letting people live their lives freely if they're not causing any harm I think the ball's in your court, chief.

 

[Edit_XYZ]

The one who makes a proposition (you, in this case) must support it.
Otherwise, I know of a few trillion dogmas that must be implemented alongside yours.
Well, to be frank, you do support it - but all your justification is about belief, and inconsistent belief at that.

Since I assume you don't support prejudice just for shits and giggles, and that you do support letting people live their lives freely if they're not causing any harm I think the ball's in your court, chief.

If your justification were 'not supporting prejudice' you would support polygamy - and a LOT of other practices. Since you do not support this LOT of practices, what you've just posted is a rationalization, not a reason.
We've already been over this. Your attempts at consistency were underwhelming then, too.

 

[Stoo]

I haven't stated any position on polygamy, so there's nothing to be inconsistent with. Even I did, and was inconsistent, there are other possibilies besides my conclusion on acceptance of homosexuality being wrong.

 

[Edit_XYZ]

I haven't stated any position on polygamy, so there's nothing to be inconsistent with. Take each difference from the current accepted norm on its own merits. Is there a reason to oppose this?

So - you support the dogma because your group supports it (and you import ready-made rationalizations, with no thought as to the dogma's consistency)?
There's an euphemism for this - political correctness.

PS - I see you keep inquiring as to my position on the issue - if you want me to answer meaningfully, be more specific: support the right of homosexuals to be together, support giving them all benefits of families/families with children, etc?
What exactly is your question?

 

[Stoo]

Well yes the actual position you hold is more interesting than debate club tactics because I don't think for one second that consistency of arguments is something that provokes you to pick fights on internet forums.

also maybe you should tell me exactly what you think my Dogma is and how it is at odds with the truth?

 

[Jedi_Master]

It sure would be nice to be in living in the Star Trek universe - because if we were a "Red Alert" or some other crisis would have already interrupted this argument, and we could move on.

 

[Stoo]

sorry!

 

[Jedi_Master]

sorry!

No worries . I get tired of watching posters like Edit_XYZ take stances that are deliberately silly, and then derailing threads with arguments that serve no purpose.

 

[beamMe]

You do know we're not living in a teen soap-opera, yes?
A 'family' is not 2 people who go on dates, a family is 2 people who have and raise children. An endeavor of crucial importance to society - which is why the family gained its legal protection.

Now that I think of it, polygamous couples can achieve this function as well - as opposed to homosexual couples. Truly an astounding blind spot for you, what with criminalized polygamy apparently not being worth your...'advocacy'. But I'm talking logic and consistency again - not your cup of tea.

As for polygamy, that's a separate question. And even if advocating for A logically entails advocating for B, and people are failing to advociate for B, it doesn't mean advocating for A is automatically wrong.

The rationalization given for the advocacy is that 'all types of sexual relationships are equally good'.
This leads - by a very simple deduction - to advocating for homosexuality, but for polygamy, as well.
If people are advocating for homosexuality, but not for polygamy, that means the rationalization given is not the reason they're advocating for homosexuality, Stoo.
That's logic 101.

Indeed, advocating for homosexuality is a dogma - and dogmas are not big on logical foundations. Indeed, they always are 'believe and don't ask why' memes. Justification, if it exists, is always of the 'this is the right/just/enlightened/optimistic thing to believe in' kind.

1 All threads discussing hot issues such as homosexuality are primarily about the real world: as said, essentially the posters complain about a lack of homosexual relations in star trek/etc because these are viewed with some social opprobium in the real world and they think homosexuality is not propagandized enough in trek/whatever medium.
You actually think your attempt to divorce this from the real world is not blatantly obvious, Stoo? Ookie-dookie.

BTW, using star trek/etc as a vehicle to promote one's PC beliefs is NOT part of good story-telling.

2 You attach your 'optimistic/enlightened' adjectives on what?
On 'homosexuality is optimistic/enlightened' or on 'all types of sexual relationships are equally good is optimistic/enlightened'?

If the former, I already covered it in this post.

Let's assume the latter (and damn the inconsistencies!):
Any society must give preferential treatment to social relations essential for its survival and flourishing - any other strategy leads to negative effects on the society. This, regardless of how many enlightened/optimistic adjectives you use to argue for the contrary.

And the social relations relating to giving birth and raising the next generation ARE essential for a society.
That is to say, I like how you tried to use the negative imagery of "baby-making unit" to argue for the contrary. Well done, Stoo.

This is true of the star trek society, as well.
Not of Iain Banks Culture society, though. Why? Because, in the Culture, humans are essentially parasites on the Culture; and weak parasites, at that - they can't even come close to straining the resources of the godlike AI rulers, no matter what they do. Nothing humans do is essential for anything.

A family is were children are raised.

As said:

[...]
Well - you can try to redefine the concept of 'family' all you want; your redefined concept will be, as opposed to of crucial importance to society (creating the next generation and all that), useless to society.
How does the saying go? 'You can call something a cow, but you can't milk it'.

[...]You further need to read up on the percentage of families who have and raise children vs the percentage of homosexual couples who raise children.

PS - Stoo, beamMe, congratulations. You actually made me write a long post. Oh well.

[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TcYkFzd1iFM[/yt]

 

[Kemaiku]

Durr

 

[T'Girl]

Infertility is the inability to have offspring ..

And someone who (properly) employs drugs or barriers is in fact "inable" to conceive. We can also include those who have been rendered sterile through a medical procedure, or a injury.

Well, polygamy ...

Simply because I (or others) advocate the presence of a gay character, doesn't mean there aren't a wide variety of other matters that I find important, but choose not to mention at this time.

It in no way diminishes my belief that you Editxyz should spay/neuter your pet.

I also value mission style furnishings, but that didn't seen relevant to the subject immediately at hand. Neither did whatever it was you were talking about.