seriously JP, kudos on the verbiage. however, beautiful language does not make truth and though it can mask logical inconsistencies, it cannot make them disappear. btw, i like how you skillfully use the word "marriage,"...
hehe. I only used the language here to show you the real basis for what we do when we say “I do.”
i would prefer "genetic combination."
Call it what you must, it is the basis of all that you are, a union or “marriage” of two human expressions that resulted in yet another human expression - you.
furthermore, i don't believe that this genetic combination is what "most fundamentally expresses" my human identity. Identical twins share the exact same genetic code, and yet their identities remain unique and independent.
Well. This is irrelevant. Whether people are identical twins or one African and another Norwegian, two people with logical natures that can unite such that the union or “marriage” can result in further promotion of the species, obviously share the same essential logical identity. The differences between their personal expressions within the environment give us no grounds to claim them essentially foreign to one another. Your personal identity consists of a multitude of expressions, beginning with conception and ending with death. The same applies to your twin brother. The differences between the ways in which you self-express are fundamentally superficial. These differences exist above a more fundamental truth of genetic union. They do not permit us to declare the both of you of different species.
My humanity may have begun as a zygote, but that zygote does not encompass the person I am today.
It is the basis of the person you are today. It is not the sole identifier of you; but the processes that are responsible for all that does identify you all have their basis directly in the expression inherent to the zygote you once were. You merely need to strip away all of the higher expressions that you think of as “you” to find you at your very first instance in this world. There you are. And to abort your nature here is literally to abort the nature essentially shared by all of humanity. It is to sin against that nature.
very slick.. you seamlessly transition from "informational marriage," to the more abstract "marriage" to set up your later point about divorce ... sneaky sneaky.
Nothing sneaky about it. The transition was intentional and there is not a single flaw in it. It simply illustrates to you why it is we say “I do” as we do. Our identities are reflected in the identity of the union of our parents. It is all about identity, what most reflects what we are. Divorce is the identity of no human. Marriage is – and it is always heterosexual.
no, my genes are not "me in nutshell." I am the combined product of my genes and my environment, my physicality, memory, personality, desires, and fears - all of these things define who I am. take away any one and i wouldn't exist as i am.
All of these things are mere expressions of the value of “you” that came into being at conception. You existed in a nutshell and influenced by the environment eventually expressed such that you came to read this note. Strip away all of these higher expressions and walk back to the first expression and there you will find what you are most fundamentally. Once again, it is not all that you are – but it is the most essential “you” that has ever been. Aborting you would have been the murder of an essential human.
this is where you make a sharp turn into logical oblivion. "naturally wrong" and "anti-me" are entirely artificial concepts you made up to serve your purpose. Although they sound great, they have little inherent meaning.
You have a self-expressing nature, Enam. There is no magic here. That nature came into being at conception. To destroy this nature is to destroy what is natural to you. There is no oblivion here. It is common sense that you have simply lost.
you seem to want to boil down the entirety of life and human existence to the need to procreate (and I thought libs were the sex-obsessed ones!).
Absolutely not. It has nothing to do with the need to procreate. Procreation is but another expression that is distinctly human. It is but one of many levels of expression that is human. Neither abortion nor homosexuality are amongst these expressions. They are essentially foreign to us.
I don't think having sex for pleasure is anti-me or naturally wrong, and although I may find homosexual sex distasteful, who am I to tell others how they should derive pleasure from life (as long as both parties are of age and willing). surely you would agree that humans are genetically disposed to seeking pleasure?
Dear sir, this is entirely beside the point. The point has to do with what we most fundamentally are in nature. It is our right in nature to, from the very first to the last, uphold and maintain the humanity that nature has given us, this, without any infringement at all. We may engage in certain higher expressions that do not reflect that identity. We may, for example, engage in homosexual sex or sex with animals. But we have, and here it is, we have no right to insist that any human should accept or by any other means respect or recognize these inhuman behaviors. We have no right because they are not us. They are forms of play that are entirely removed from our essential identity – unlike heterosexuality and life itself – two things that are under assault by homosexuality and abortion.
ahhhh... u sly dog. you basically repeat the same line you just stated, but now you've transitioned from the innocuous sounding "naturally wrong" and "anti-you" to "literal sin." you have stated that you are not religious, so I'm curious why "sin" would creep into the discussion?…
I use the term “sin” simply as a term that means “error” or “conflict”. To sin against nature is the same as to commit error against nature or to “miss the mark” that nature has established. There is no religion here at all – at least not in the manner in which you apparently take the word.
woooooooaaaaaah, now wait a damn minute. only a minute ago, were were having a objective scientific discussion, then i blinked and were talking sins and evil? well, obviously since you have already labeled it a sin, it has to be evil right?
Why of course. The word “evil” here in this context simply means that which is anti-nature, that which is false or “wrong,” with “wrongness” being defined as that which is anti-us. It is not a particularly religious word here – at least not religious in any supernatural way. I use it here without any fallacy at all.
in only a few sentences, you have truly turned water into wine my friend.
I have turned water into wine – only in your mind. You have simply brought your prejudices against supernatural religion to these words when the words may easily be used as I use them – concerning only that which is natural. There is not a shred of magic in my position. Not even the slightest shred of the supernatural.
…It seems that for all the beatiful equivocation... the underlying chain of logic is pretty flimsy no?
Not even in the slightest. I simply took words commonly used by religionists and appropriated them for use about nature. The words themselves have nothing to do with the supernatural.
heh... this is the kicker. by now, you figure that the reader has "marriage" imbedded in his brain, and associated with "the natural me" and the opposite of evil sin, so anti-marriage, or divorce, must therefore be naturally wrong. again, since your premise fails to hold up, your conclusions come tumbling down like a house of cards.
Nope. You have just allowed your fear of “religion” to carry you away, being prompted by my use of certain words. Divorce is inhuman or a “sin” against our nature because no human is predicated upon it and it philosophically lies contrary to human essential identity. Mom and Dad are in you, and their essential identities in you never "divorce" to later become replaced by some other genetic identities. They remain fixed, united, "married" in you until your natural death. There is only one human relationship reflecting this essential human identity – and you know what it is. You all know what it is, but admitting it tells the truth about you – a truth you do not wish to see.
seeing as marriage is not required for successful procreation, nor is it an inherent part of our genetic code, i'm not sure where this comes from.
Marriage is the biological basis of human existence. What we do when we say “I do” is just participate in weddings, a higher expression that takes place in view of the fundamental biology that under girds us all.
When you think “marriage” you see dresses and tuxedos. When nature “thinks” marriage it “sees” biological expression flowing from the informational union of two other biological expressions. I am close to nature here and am trying to get you there (apparently with very little success).
even if you were to argue that marriage is necessary for successful child-rearing, that would only mean that is necessary until the child becomes mature.
Irrelevant.
for a non-religious zealot, JP, you would have made one hell of a preacher.
Thanks for the compliment.
it appears that you are guilty, same as I was, of creating an artificial construct (albeit an eloquent one) to use as a foundation for a belief you have that is more firmly rooted in feelings than in fact.
There are no feelings here at all. My view is based upon pure biological fact and the identity that emerges of those facts. Here is the problem: While you have been looking upward, I have all along been talking under your head. |
