toldailytopic: Same-sex marriage: for it, or against it?

[zippy2006]

I disagree with this man's argument, and I'll explain why.

:thumb: Fascinating, you're going to explain why :shocked:

(impossible is a particular circumstance or detail)

This is incorrect, impossible generally refers to a universal, and he specifically notes "in principle impossible," so he is clearly referring to what is ....in principle impossible.

The simple fact is that no, procreation is not always possible between a man and a woman. He once again uses "in principle" in conjunction with details, in this case "it is always possible." This argument he uses falls apart when you combine the quote with his reasoning.



Further broken down.



His argument and conclusion are in contradiction, making it an invalid and unsound argument.

You're wrong here. I will paraphrase him: "Procreation between a man and a woman is (always) possible in principle." A man and a woman, by definition and by nature, can procreate. Any couple who cannot is an exception, not the rule. His argument is perfectly sound.

:e4e:

 

[zippy2006]

Oh no, you implied it. Here's the deal: You viewed the video with the view that homosexuals should not marry because it was a sin. So NATURALLY, you consider everything said in the video as relevant.

I viewed the video with the preconceived belief of "Oh boy, here we go again. Another person making up excuses to show bigotry towards gays". What was stated on the video is NOTHING new.

I have been on TOL for a number of years and have never read or listened to a relevant reason to disallow gays from marrying. Sort of the same way I have never heard a good reason as to whites and blacks should not marry ... lain:

He gave a reason, you didn't, that's all I'm concerned with. I am perfectly content ending this conversation. If you would like it to continue then feel free to give a precise reason why you believe his reasoning was incorrect, as Razorblades attempted. :e4e:

 

[Refractive]

Sort of the same way I have never heard a good reason as to whites and blacks should not marry ... lain:

Too hard to light the wedding pictures.

So, Rusha! Your signature bunny is making me crazy because it looks like a fat kitty. You need to figure out how to make the ears longer. Or else it's going to get mistaken for the wrong species and next thing you know we'll have all sorts of unnatural unions around here.

 

[Rusha]

He gave a reason, you didn't, that's all I'm concerned with. I am perfectly content ending this conversation. If you would like it to continue then feel free to give a precise reason why you believe his reasoning was incorrect, as Razorblades attempted. :e4e:

I ALREADY did ...as did Mr. Razorblades.

Procreation is NOT always possible in the unions of men and women. The "in principal" is not a valid argument.

Sort of like this claim: In principal, individuals with legs always walk. NO, they do NOT always walk. :think:

 

[zippy2006]

Sort of like this claim: In principal, individuals with legs always walk. NO, they do NOT always walk. :think:

You simply misunderstand what "in principle" means, which he addressed in detail in the video. "In principle, human beings can walk." It's a perfectly valid statement. You are trying to make a rule out of the exception.

 

[Rusha]

Too hard to light the wedding pictures.

So, Rusha! Your signature bunny is making me crazy because it looks like a fat kitty. You need to figure out how to make the ears longer. Or else it's going to get mistaken for the wrong species and next thing you know we'll have all sorts of unnatural unions around here.

My bunny is disfigured ... you mean old bunny hater, you! :sigh:

 

[Granite]

Needless to say, I didn't call Rusha a liar. I have no doubt she watched it, but I doubt she really listened and thought about it. Take your soap operas elsewhere.

That's not what you said previously at all. Backtracking now just makes you look even more foolish.

 

[chrysostom]

You simply misunderstand what "in principle" means, which he addressed in detail in the video. "In principle, human beings can walk." It's a perfectly valid statement. You are trying to make a rule out of the exception.

I hope you realize that she is the exception

 

[Rusha]

You simply misunderstand what "in principle" means, which he addressed in detail in the video. "In principle, human beings can walk." It's a perfectly valid statement. You are trying to make a rule out of the exception.

No, I am not. I do NOT agree with the conclusion that the purpose of marriage is to have children.

Do you think anyone is denying that biologically two homosexuals cannot bear children without the intervention of a third party or medical procedure?

I would still like someone to answer a question I asked of Mr. One Line Wonder:

IF marriage is for the purpose of creating a family unit via procreation, then should be stricter requirements and guidelines prior to issuing a marriage license?

Should those requirements include that both partners undergo invasive medical procedures and testing to make sure they can biologically create children by using the *old fashion* method?

During the course of the marriage, should one of the partners become unable to produce or bear children, then you agree that the marital contract should be automatically dissolved?

IF you are going to insist that marriage is only for those capable of making babies, then atleast be consistent. Do you agree with these requirements?

 

[zippy2006]

No. You don't have to have children to obtain advantages and you don't have to procreate to have children if you want them. You are aware we're talking about the secular law here and not Catholic dogma, no?

That isn't the point. (I agree with the youtube video)

The government has a fundamental obligation to the proposition that all men stand equally before the law and in right. Here, they don't and, again, for the same reason I can't buy a lottery ticket in Alabama.

If gays could procreate then they would be "equal", unfortunately God made the couples "unequal" :idunno:

 

[Mr.Razorblades]

:thumb: Fascinating, you're going to explain why :shocked:

Sarcasm, yay...never.thought.I.would.see.you.do.that.

This is incorrect, impossible generally refers to a universal, and he specifically notes "in principle impossible," so he is clearly referring to what is ....in principle impossible.

By stating that impossible is "in principle" you are removing the connotations of impossible and placing in specifics. He would have been better off saying "where procreation is impossible". There was absolutely no need to use in principle in reference to impossible.

You're wrong here. I will paraphrase him: "Procreation between a man and a woman is (always) possible in principle." His argument is perfectly sound.

:e4e:

Don't paraphrase. His quote word for word is,

"... because between a man and a woman in principle procreation is always possible."

This is not sound. By moving around words you can make an argument sound, but his orignial argument is not equal to what you are paraphrasing.

When you say something could be impossible in principle, then later tie your argument off with man and woman in principle can always procreate you are stating that no matter what circumstances man and woman can procreate. This is a falsity because we know that man and woman cannot always procreate. It's somewhat similar to saying "Birds can always fly."

You simply misunderstand what "in principle" means, which he addressed in detail in the video. "In principle, human beings can walk." It's a perfectly valid statement. You are trying to make a rule out of the exception.

This is true, in principle human beings can walk, but what you did was leave out the word always, which in essence means all of the time no matter the circumstances. If you were to say "in principle, human beings can always walk", then your statement would be false because human beings cannot always walk.

 

[Rusha]

I hope you realize that she is the exception

No, Mr. One Line Wonder, *she* is not the exception.

 

[zippy2006]

No, I am not. I do NOT agree with the conclusion that the purpose of marriage is to have children.

Do you think anyone is denying that biologically two homosexuals cannot bear children without the intervention of a third party or medical procedure?

I would still like someone to answer a question I asked of Mr. One Line Wonder:

IF marriage is for the purpose of creating a family unit via procreation, then should be stricter requirements and guidelines prior to issuing a marriage license?

Should those requirements include that both partners undergo invasive medical procedures and testing to make sure they can biologically create children by using the *old fashion* method?

During the course of the marriage, should one of the partners become unable to produce or bear children, then you agree that the marital contract should be automatically dissolved?

IF you are going to insist that marriage is only for those capable of making babies, then atleast be consistent. Do you agree with these requirements?

The civil concern with marriage is procreation. The government is not about making rules out of exceptions. Laws are not written for anomalies.

African Americans are more eligible for scholarships and financial aid in this country. According to your logic, the government should actually screen each African American candidate to see whether they are actually in financial need before they are eligible.

 

[Granite]

Talking about the "equality" of marriages opens a very ominous door. By what standard would a couple with below average intelligence be considered in a marriage "equal" to a couple of prodigies?

 

[Rusha]

If gays could procreate then they would be "equal", unfortunately God made the couples "unequal" :idunno:

Oh, but they *can* procreate ... just not in a way you approve of. Meanwhile, not ALL heterosexuals couples are capable of procreation.

IF you are using this as how you determine who should and shouldn't be allowed to marry, then it would only stand to reason that MORE than two individuals gender comes into play. Extensive and invasive medical examinations and testing would be required.

Are you agreeable to mandating that all heterosexuals be required to prove they are capable of making babies as a requirement to marry?

 

[Rusha]

The civil concern with marriage is procreation. The government is not about making rules out of exceptions. Laws are not written for anomalies.

African Americans are more eligible for scholarships and financial aid in this country. According to your logic, the government should actually screen each African American candidate to see whether they are actually in financial need before they are eligible.

This thread has nothing to do with scholarships. Please start a separate thread if you feel the need to discuss another topic.

 

[zippy2006]

By stating that impossible is "in principle" you are removing the connotations of impossible and placing in specifics. He would have been better off saying "where procreation is impossible". There was absolutely no need to use in principle in reference to impossible.

You're conflating two senses:

1. A man and a man cannot procreate
2. Bill and Jill cannot procreate

1 is true regardless of the specifics, 2 is true only because of specific circumstances. "In principle" is what separates the two.

Don't paraphrase. His quote word for word is,

First of all, I will paraphrase. He is talking for 2 minutes in an interview, you don't get to nitpick his words and try to make an artificial argument against a specific arrangement of words while ignoring the actual substance of the argument.

"... because between a man and a woman in principle procreation is always possible."

This is not sound. By moving around words you can make an argument sound, but his orignial argument is not equal to what you are paraphrasing.

Furthermore, it is sound even as it stands. It is perfectly sound :idunno: My paraphrase was actually semantically equivalent.

When you say something could be impossible in principle, then later tie your argument off with man and woman in principle can always procreate you are stating that no matter what circumstances man and woman can procreate.

Slow down Razor, that's simply not what he said. You ignored the "in principle" part of his words. You would be right if he hadn't said (and intended) "in principle." You are the one making contradictions by trying to tie a concept in principle to specific circumstances.

This is true, in principle human beings can walk, but what you did was leave out the word always, which in essence means all of the time no matter the circumstances. If you were to say "in principle, human beings can always walk", then your statement would be false because human beings cannot always walk.

It would still be true :e4e:

 

[zippy2006]

If gays could procreate then they would be "equal", unfortunately God made the couples "unequal"

Oh, but they *can* procreate ... just not in a way you approve of.

:squint: How?

There exist only two men on earth, how will they procreate Rusha?

 

[JOB.1.21]

Against!! I think it's disgusting and desecrates what God made marraige all about. We need to outlaw this practice along with letting same-sex "couples"(perverts) adopt children!

 

[bybee]

You're conflating two senses:

1. A man and a man cannot procreate
2. Bill and Jill cannot procreate

1 is true regardless of the specifics, 2 is true only because of specific circumstances. "In principle" is what separates the two.




First of all, I will paraphrase. He is talking for 2 minutes in an interview, you don't get to nitpick his words and try to make an artificial argument against a specific arrangement of words while ignoring the actual substance of the argument.



Furthermore, it is sound even as it stands. It is perfectly sound :idunno: My paraphrase was actually semantically equivalent.



Slow down Razor, that's simply not what he said. You ignored the "in principle" part of his words. You would be right if he hadn't said (and intended) "in principle." You are the one making contradictions by trying to tie a concept in principle to specific circumstances.



It would still be true :e4e:

What then, is the principle underlying those religious vocations which call for marriage to the church or marriage to Christ?
We are guaranteed freedom of religion. Therefore it is an individual matter. Obedience to the law is required of all citizens. Legal contracts may be freely entered into by consenting adults. Some citizens do not belong to any religious group. Their rights should not be dictated by religious groups but rather the law of the land.