This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

SalGagliano's Profile

SalGagliano's Avatar Joined over 2 years ago
Gender: Male

Latest Discussions Started by SalGagliano

More Discussions by SalGagliano

Latest Comments by SalGagliano

Go to: Marriage - two viewpoints

SalGagliano's Avatar Jump to comment 176 by SalGagliano

Obviously - or not so obviously - I meant "impotent", not "impudent". LOL - the joke's on me, fair enough (though I will add parenthetically that I wish I had a dollar for every time I've encountered an internet discussion board participant that calls himself "Tyler Durdan". I'd be quite wealthy. Honestly, "fight club" just wasn't that great a movie).

Comment 168 by xmaseveeve :

Tell me this. Why is it that the vast majority of gay people came from straight parents? And have you never seen 'La Cage Aux Folles?' Answer please.

I'm afraid I don't understand what you're getting at with respect to your first question - though I believe it would be safe to presume that just about all (as opposed to the "vast majority") of gay people came from straight parents, or at least parents that were straight at one time or another in their lives. As for your second question, the answer is No, and I don't feel as though I haven't lived a full life because of it.

Comment 170 by mmurray :

You are saying their relationships are not as important as heterosexual relationships. How ever much you twist and turn that is what you are saying.

No argument. That is exactly what I am saying, at least from an objective sociological standpoint. It's axiomatic. How can they be? One relationship type is vital to the propagation of the society, while the other is completely irrelevant to it - and from a strictly objective and scientific standpoint, genetic continuity is life's very purpose.

Comment 169 by Layla :

Argument from tradition ... You're actually implying that the fact we'd have to change something is a reason not to change it.

No, I'm saying that the very definition of the thing in question precludes it from being changed to what you are aspiring to change it to.

Comment 169 by Layla :

I‘m sorry, what common interest are we talking about here? Is this the common interest of the propogation of the species? Because gay marriage will not effect the population rate.

You seem to miss the point entirely. Issues related to fluctuations in the population rate are political matters. The question is one of every living organism's biological imperative: reproduction. Consequently, equating homosex and heterosex is a fundamental breach of logic.

As for your charges of Nationalistic Chauvinism on my part, I guess I'll have to plead guilty. Typical of Americans, I know. Anyhow, as I previously stated, were' obviously not going to change each other's minds concerning this, so I'll let you have the final word.

Mon, 19 Mar 2012 02:06:11 UTC | #928525

Go to: Marriage - two viewpoints

SalGagliano's Avatar Jump to comment 166 by SalGagliano

We're going in circles here Michael. Here where I live - which with all due respect to my friends Down under and elsewhere, is really where the current focus on this issue rests - the majority oppose gay marriage. If that were not true, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Everywhere in the United States - including States as "progressive" as California and New York - when the question of recognizing "gay marriage" is put to a plebiscite, the answer has consistently been a decisive "no". Again, I'm not suggesting that this fact in and of itself validates the opposition: rather, I'm merely pointing out that the issue is at it's core is a contest of competing subjective world views and ethical dispositions, and not a dispute involving logic and reason.

Your other contention segues with Layla's rebuttal: Why should couples that have no reasonable expectation of producing and raising children (such couples where one or both of the pair may be sterile, impudent, or advanced in years)? It's really quite simple: because in order to accommodate those couples, the definition marriage doesn't have to be changed ... and nor do the parameters - legal, social and otherwise - regarding the institution. Have you ever been Divorced? You do realize, that divorce law is very gender specific, don't you? Nobody is saying that gay people can't live their lives as they see fit. Nobody is suggesting that they go back in the closet. Nobody is even saying that they can't raise THEIR children ( hint,hint ) as they see fit - but to suggest that the fact that homosexual unions can't by definition produce children is of no significance to the question, is basically akin to suggesting that procreation itself is of no consequence to the common interest.

Anyhow, clearly we're not going to change each other's minds about this. We'll have to agree to disagree. I've enjoyed the discussion.

Mon, 19 Mar 2012 00:14:53 UTC | #928502

Go to: Marriage - two viewpoints

SalGagliano's Avatar Jump to comment 162 by SalGagliano

I am perfectly willing to concede when my arguments have been shown to be invalid. You have simply failed to to that. You have attempted to define marriage primarily as a legal contract, with the basis of that contract being monogamous, committed sexual and life-partner relationships - while completely ignoring the underlying biological imperative. At no time did I ever invoke a bandwagon justification for my position: I merely pointed out the Democratic - and by extension completely subjective - nature of a moral and ethical consensus, which is the rational upon which YOUR cases are based.

Sun, 18 Mar 2012 21:56:03 UTC | #928469

Go to: What is deism? Is it possible?

SalGagliano's Avatar Jump to comment 197 by SalGagliano

Hello Steve:

I think the question is much more basic: namely, does the physical universe require some explanation, or does it adequately explain itself? Deists subscribe to the former contention. Both conclusions, however, are ultimately unfalsifiable.

Sun, 18 Mar 2012 21:33:05 UTC | #928461

Go to: Marriage - two viewpoints

SalGagliano's Avatar Jump to comment 158 by SalGagliano

Comment 154 by Layla :

In your view, since gay relationships can not produce children a "gay marriage" would be a contradiction in terms ... The problems with this have been pointed out to you already to no effect so you'll forgive my scepticism in thinking it would be a wasted effort to repeat them here.

You are correct. It would be a wasted effort, because such rationalizations remain unconvincing, for they are ultimately based entirely upon subjective moralizing, as I have repeatedly demonstrated.

Comment 155 by xmaseveeve :

That's because a tail is not a leg. Gay people are human beings.

Obviously - but that is not what is in dispute. The point of contention is what constitutes the correct definition of a marriage, and what are the reasonable limits to which that definition is flexible.

Comment 156 by mmurray :

In what country? In Australia support for marriage equality is in the majority. We would have joined Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Iceland, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, South Africa, and Sweden awhile ago except for our complicated political system.

I live in the United States, so that is the society I am primarily focusing on. Australia notwithstanding (and the social desirability bias cannot be disregarded), I don't know for a fact that the legitimization of homosexual marriage within those other societies is the consequence of a more "progressive" moral and ethical consensus, or simply well-financed interests leveraging the power of the State. However, even if I grant your case the benefit of the doubt, it nevertheless constitutes a text book example of a bandwagon fallacy. The truth is the truth even if no one believes it, and a lie is a lie even if everyone believes it.

Sun, 18 Mar 2012 21:08:10 UTC | #928447

More Comments by SalGagliano