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

[zippy2006]

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.

It's not religious, it is secular. You need a man and a woman to make a new human being, regardless of your religion. :e4e:

 

[rexlunae]

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

There exist only two people on Earth: A fertile man and a post-menopausal woman. How will they procreate?

 

[Rusha]

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!

:yawn:

 

[zippy2006]

There exist only two people on Earth: A fertile man and a post-menopausal woman. How will they procreate?

They won't. What's your point?

My scenario did not rely on specific circumstances, whereas yours did. If you wanted to give an analogous analogy, you could not appeal to individual circumstances. I also doubt you disagree with the point I am making against Rusha. :idunno:

 

[rexlunae]

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!

Well, at least it's simple here. Your personal religious bigotry shouldn't be binding on anyone else.

 

[Rusha]

:squint: How?

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

There exist only two people on Earth: A fertile man and a post-menopausal woman. How will they procreate?

Yea Zippy, how?

 

[Mr.Razorblades]

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.

Exactly, in principle means "with regard to fundamentals although not concerning details". When you start to add circumstances you are veering from the usage of in principle because of the addition of a circumstance or detail, making it effectively null void in the argument you are presenting.

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.

I said don't paraphrase because the usage in which you placed your words when you paraphrased changed the argument from the original usage of his words. In other words, your placement of his words changed the substance of his argument. His words are his argument, so when he places them in such a way to defend his argument then he is open for literal interpretation of his argument.

Besides, it's only two minutes where he talks for about 50 seconds total, not a very significant amount of time, and if it is significant to you then why are you here trying to defend his faulty argument?

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

No, his argument is a complete contradiction. You're paraphrasing it changed the original meaning.

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:

Yes zippy it is simply what he said. Go to 1:08 of that video and you will see that he says "in principle, procreation is always possible." That is not what you are stating.

 

[zippy2006]

Yea Zippy, how?

I never claimed that post-menopausal women could procreate. You claimed two homosexuals could. Still waiting. :yawn:

 

[zippy2006]

Besides, it's only two minutes where he talks for about 50 seconds total, not a very significant amount of time, and if it is significant to you then why are you here trying to defend his faulty argument?

But that's just my point. His argument isn't faulty, and you are attempting to attack a 50 second statement by attacking the specific wording (I was being conservative with the 2 minutes, my point was that it was a very short amount of time).

Yes zippy it is simply what he said. Go to 1:08 of that video and you will see that he says "in principle, procreation is always possible." That is not what you are stating.

1. in principle, procreation is always possible.

2. in principle, procreation is possible.

1 and 2 are equivalent statements (hence my earlier parenthetical "always"). A man qua man and a woman qua woman can procreate every time. We are nitpicking, but you are still wrong in the nitpicking. His overall argument stands either way.

 

[Rusha]

They won't. What's your point?

Do you need us to draw a pic for you?

My scenario did not rely on specific circumstances, whereas yours did. If you wanted to give an analogous analogy, you could not appeal to individual circumstances. I also doubt you disagree with the point I am making against Rusha. :idunno:

You have yet to make a VALID *point against Rusha*.

Either marriage should mandate that a couple PROVE they can and will produce babies biologically and immediately upon marrying or it should not? Which is it?

Are you so committed to your hatred towards homosexuality that you would advocate for the enforcement of the Procreation Police?

 

[bybee]

It's not religious, it is secular. You need a man and a woman to make a new human being, regardless of your religion. :e4e:

There are unions which do not intend to have children. There are unions which care for children not biologically born to them.
In our society, a union is both a legal, that is, secular event and for those of us who have a religious tradition it is also a religious commitment before God.

 

[rexlunae]

They won't. What's your point?

That your question is meaningless. As is the "in principle" qualifier you're arguing for. Saying that two people are fertile "in principle" is either a reference to being fertile in fact or it's totally meaningless.

My scenario did not rely on specific circumstances, whereas yours did.

Sure it did. It relied on the specific genders of the people involved, leading to a poor and hasty generalization.

If you wanted to give an analogous analogy, you could not appeal to individual circumstances.

All circumstances have specifics, and the specifics are important and relevant.

 

[zippy2006]

That your question is meaningless. As is the "in principle" qualifier you're arguing for. Saying that two people are fertile "in principle" is either a reference to being fertile in fact or it's totally meaningless.



Sure it did. It relied on the specific genders of the people involved, leading to a poor and hasty generalization.



All circumstances have specifics, and the specifics are important and relevant.

You're wrong, for we're talking about law.

This thread is about homosexuality and heterosexuality. In principle, a man and a women can procreate, two men can't. Done. The context of the statement you are attacking has Rusha claiming that two homosexuals can procreate, are you agreeing with Rusha?

 

[Mr.Razorblades]

But that's just my point. His argument isn't faulty, and you are attempting to attack a 50 second statement by attacking the specific wording.



1. in principle, procreation is always possible.

2. in principle, procreation is possible.

1 and 2 are equivalent statements. A man qua man and a woman qua woman can procreate every time. We are nitpicking, but you are still wrong in the nitpicking. His overall argument stands either way.

This will be the last time I state this. If you use always in a statement, then you are saying under all circumstances A will always happen. So, using your examples.

1. In principle, procreation is always possible.
-meaning no matter the circumstance, which is contradictory to the meaning of "in principle", or in used in the following

a. In principle, procreation is always possible between man A and woman B.

2. In principle, procreation is possible.
-this is the correct usage of in principle, but by inserting always you are effectively contradicting the usage of "in principle"

In final summary, his argument is still both invalid and unsound. He has formed a contradictory argument, which would have been noticed right off the bat in a Reasoning and Critical Thinking 101 college class.

 

[zippy2006]

This is the insanity of the homosexual position: they simply don't understand the fact that a homosexual couple is no equal to a heterosexual couple, by nature.

I say men and women can procreate whereas men and men can't, and the rebuttal is "What about a special case where the heterosexual couple is unable to procreate!" :squint:

 

[Rusha]

A man qua man and a woman qua woman can procreate every time.

No, they cannot. Not every man and every woman are capable of producing children.

 

[Rusha]

I say men and women can procreate whereas men and men can't, and the rebuttal is "What about a special case where the heterosexual couple is unable to procreate!" :squint:

Well, no offense, but your position is stupid. You are the person who is using procreation as a reason to discriminate against gays.

It is also a reason to discriminate against MANY heterosexuals. Also, gays CAN reproduce via a surrogate. In the same way that many heterosexual couples have to rely on a surrogate.

 

[zippy2006]

This will be the last time I state this. If you use always in a statement, then you are saying under all circumstances A will always happen. So, using your examples.

1. In principle, procreation is always possible.
-meaning no matter the circumstance, which is contradictory to the meaning of "in principle", or in used in the following

It is exactly what "in principle" means, which is why you are wrong. In principle means "ignoring individual circumstances." We're having a silly syntactical argument and you are wrong. :chuckle:

a. In principle, procreation is always possible between man A and woman B.

2. In principle, procreation is possible.
-this is the correct usage of in principle, but by inserting always you are effectively contradicting the usage of "in principle"

Adding "always" is merely redundant, not contradictory.

In final summary, his argument is still both invalid and unsound. He has formed a contradictory argument, which would have been noticed right off the bat in a Reasoning and Critical Thinking 101 college class.

Here you go sir:

In principle, men and women can always procreate.

The principle of a man includes reproductive viability, and the same goes for a women. Since we are looking at men and women in principle, the procreative act can never fail. It is abstract and redundant, but it is true. It would be like saying that Plato's form of a man and Plato's form of a women would never fail to procreate.

:e4e:

 

[zippy2006]

A man qua man and a woman qua woman can procreate every time.

No, they cannot. Not every man and every woman are capable of producing children.

I would recommend learning the definitions before attempting to comment on a topic next time. :e4e:

 

[Granite]

This is the insanity of the homosexual position: they simply don't understand the fact that a homosexual couple is no equal to a heterosexual couple, by nature.

I say men and women can procreate whereas men and men can't, and the rebuttal is "What about a special case where the heterosexual couple is unable to procreate!" :squint:

That's not an issue of equality so much as it is ability.