Table Talk: Essays on Men and Manners- by William Hazlitt

How to Do Things with Words- by J.L. Austin

this thread is 7 pages too long.

Maybe they have a hard time in their minds separating biological (descriptive) from normative systems (law, morality)? I don't know. As I've said many times in this thread, I'll gladly accept your point. But I will obviously accept nothing beyond that (because no implications follow from it). Homosexuality is biologically abnormal. Homosexual marriages are protected by a proper interpretation of constitutional law. The morality of homosexuality is not necessarily related to the biological or the constitutional aspect. Choice is irrelevant (my positions hold either way). Nothing inconsistent here.

what Tony said had nothing to do with choice directly. He talked about behaviors (actions) that are biologically abnormal (not the 'default' human behavior).  Choice has no role to play here (some abnormal behaviors are 'chosen' and some are not, and some are in between). It is not the default human behavior to play a musical instrument at a high level. (feel free to add in stuff about how it's not necessary for the reproduction of the human species, etc.). Therefore, being able to play a musical instrument (and all the other stuff I've mentioned as examples) at a high level is abnormal human behavior.

You're on the verge of going Aquinas here and start talking about the "purpose" of humans. That is not what Tony was talking about. Like he said, he was giving only a biological argument. Everything else, like choice, freedom, social norms, morality, constitutional law, anti-discrimination law, state law, etc. does not belong anywhere in this thread.

So modding getbig.com is an abnormal behavior then. So is playing in the New York philharmonic. These are abnormal behaviors (using the criteria set out by Tony in this thread, with which I agreed (but said was trivial)). The "choice" thing does not matter in this thread and is not related to this thread topic. This thread is purely sociological (descriptive). Many actions are abnormal behaviors under this rule. Reading this specific post is a more abnormal behavior than homosexuality (probably less than 20 humans will ever do it). Once again: So what?

I agree. Being a Mod on Getbig is more abnormal than homosexuality. This thread has no bearings on public policy, discrimination laws, constitutional law, morality, social norms, etc. It is merely stating a (trivial) fact: (Very) few people are homosexuals.

So homosexuality, religion, monogamy, basketball skills, musical talents, etc. are biologically abnormal (according to your definition in this thread).

What's your point? No matter how much they show each on TV, radio, internet, that will do nothing to affect its biological abnormal-ness? To me, this thread is a waste of time spewing out trivially true statements as if they were nuggets of wisdom with implications for public debate.

I think that's what he meant (or that we should make anything out of the norm illegal).

He's made this point before but I'm still not sure what it is. I think he's only trying to say that few people are homosexuals. Last time I replied "Not many people are violinists, so what?"

It seems to be a trivially true statement with no implications whatsoever.

why are you asking a biological question on the politics board?

But why are you assuming that biological "default" should be the standard for society? Some have argued (Aristotle, famously) that slavery is biologically 'default', but that obviously shouldn't guide public policy; so you need an argument for why this particular aspect of biological nature should be a guide for public policy.

If, however, you are merely trying to say "most humans are not homosexuals" or "near all humans are not homosexual" as a biological statement, then it seems trivially true. So what's your point?

Your question makes no sense whatsoever from a moral viewpoint.

From a constitutional law viewpoint, it is irrelevant.

gayer than spending time reading 'gayer than' posts

What do you mean by "default" and why does it matter?

Philosophical Foundations of Language in the Law- edited by Andrei Marmor and Scott Soames

The Grasshopper: Games, Life, and Utopia- by Bernard Suits

deserves to be much more known that it is. Instead of Wittgenstein's "family resemblance" regarding games, Suits sets out to give a definition. I'm about 1/3 through the book.

gayer than being rejected by the "organization"

But I see no inconsistency between "I think a marriage should be only between a man and a woman" and "homosexuals should have a chance to get married."

Aren't those two basically Obama's statements? (I don't follow everyday politics much).

The one list I thought I would make...

Quick Question: Why do you think an endorsement of an ability to get married translates as an endorsement of the marriage itself?

You seem to lose the distinction of those in your anti-gay-marriage posts.

The Problems of Jurisprudence- by Richard Posner

Yea I finished it today. I thought it was okay, he takes a lot from other authors. I don't think he thought out his conception of democracy enough; it seems too much of a 'popular' book.

Talking about pragmatists, I'm about to start reading Richard Posner.

Active Liberty: Interpreting Our Democratic Constitution- by Stephen Breyer

If she was that willing to believe the story, you weren't on the right track to begin with.

and grow up.

I thought it was too

oh brother