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

[Rusha]

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?

Don't make me sing the "liar, liar pants of fire song!"

NO, what Rusha said is that biologically two men cannot produce children. They CAN use a surrogate.

Biologically, not ALL heterosexual couples can produce children. They can also use a surrogate.

So either a couple who is unable to produce children WITHOUT intervention should be allowed to marry or they should not. Which is it?

 

[Rusha]

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

I would recommend that you follow your own advice.

 

[zippy2006]

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

I agree, which is why I usually put "equality" in quotes. But we moderns don't seem to make the distinction.

 

[Mr.Razorblades]

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.

Source
in principle
adv 1: with regard to fundamentals although not concerning
details; "in principle, we agree" [syn: in principle,
in theory, in essence]

You're using the definition wrong. "Always" is a circumstance. Go to your local college and ask a philosphy teacher if his argument is correct in its wording. Syntax is the foundation to one's argument. If your argument is syntactically incorrect then by default your argument is also incorrect because it relies on correct premises in order to form the right conclusion. His premise contradicts his conclusion.

Adding "always" is merely redundant, not contradictory.

Nope.

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.

In principle, birds can always fly.

The principal of a bird includes the addition of its wings, and the same goes for other birds. Since we are looking at birds in principle, the act of flying can never fail.

Yes, the act of flying can fail. Do you see how that is absolute rubbish. That is how you are wording the argument, which is fallacious. Stop using it incorrectly and stop trying to argue a point that you are apparently oblivous of.

 

[Uberpod1]

In principal, all humans can procreate. If marriage is for procreation, humans can marry. Two men are humans, so they can marry.

 

[Rusha]

I never claimed that post-menopausal women could procreate.

You have stated "in principle, procreation is always possible" between men and women. Under which principle are post-menopausal or women and men with other medical conditions always able to procreate?

You claimed two homosexuals could. Still waiting. :yawn:

No, I did NOT state two homosexuals can procreate in the *old fashion* sense of the word. With or without medical intervention, they can procreate via a surrogate.

IF you have a problem with pregnancies via surrogacy then certainly that standard must apply to heterosexual couples that rely on it, correct?

 

[zippy2006]

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.

Source
in principle
adv 1: with regard to fundamentals although not concerning
details; "in principle, we agree" [syn: in principle,
in theory, in essence]

You're using the definition wrong. "Always" is a circumstance. Go to your local college and ask a philosphy teacher if his argument is correct in its wording. Syntax is the foundation to one's argument. If your argument is syntactically incorrect then by default your argument is also incorrect because it relies on correct premises in order to form the right conclusion. His premise contradicts his conclusion.

See highlighted. It is exactly what I said it was.

"Always" is a circumstance.

You are merely claiming that a universal is never a particular, and that "always" must refer to a particular. That's part of your worldview, not inherent in logic.

In principle, birds can always fly.

The principal of a bird includes the addition of its wings, and the same goes for other birds. Since we are looking at birds in principle, the act of flying can never fail.

Right

Yes, the act of flying can fail.

Not in principle

 

[zippy2006]

You have stated "in principle, procreation is always possible" between men and women. Under which principle are post-menopausal or women and men with other medical conditions always able to procreate?



No, I did NOT state two homosexuals can procreate in the *old fashion* sense of the word. With or without medical intervention, they can procreate via a surrogate.

IF you have a problem with pregnancies via surrogacy then certainly that standard must apply to heterosexual couples that rely on it, correct?

Either homosexuals can procreate or they can't. I said they can't, you said I was wrong. Clearly you are wrong, I'm done with this line :wave2:

(i.e. adoption isn't procreation)

 

[Granite]

I agree, which is why I usually put "equality" in quotes. But we moderns don't seem to make the distinction.

I'm doing it right now. And so should you. As a side note, trying to judge the "equality" of one marriage over another--couple by couple, person by person, situation by situation--is impossible.

 

[Uberpod1]

:squint: How?

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

Easy-- Each can use a donor /surrogate woman (since you did not specify how many women are on earth.)

 

[zippy2006]

I'm doing it right now. And so should you. As a side note, trying to judge the "equality" of one marriage over another--couple by couple, person by person, situation by situation--is impossible.

I agree, what are you arguing against?

 

[Uberpod1]

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

Homosexuals couples can procreate if they want to.

 

[zippy2006]

Homosexuals couples can procreate if they want to.

:chuckle: They must make 'em different where you come from.

 

[Granite]

I agree, what are you arguing against?

That attacking gay marriage because it's somehow "unequal" to straight marriage is an absurd non-starter of an argument.

If there is an argument against gay marriage to be made outside of a religious framework, I've never seen it.

 

[rexlunae]

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

This is a dismissal, not a response. You didn't even take the time to note which part of my post was errant. Care to give it a more serious attempt?

This thread is about homosexuality and heterosexuality.

Hm, yes, I got that.

In principle, a man and a women can procreate, two men can't. Done.

Meaningless, as explained supra.

The context of the statement you are attacking has Rusha claiming that two homosexuals can procreate, are you agreeing with Rusha?

Well, I hadn't gotten around to it in this thread, but the whole examination of the ability of heterosexual couples to procreate is meant to demonstrate that fertility is not, in fact, a requisite for marriage.

 

[zippy2006]

That attacking gay marriage because it's somehow "unequal" to straight marriage is an absurd non-starter of an argument.

If there is an argument against gay marriage to be made outside of a religious framework, I've never seen it.

Did you watch the youtube video that is the source of the recent conversation?

 

[zippy2006]

This is a dismissal, not a response. You didn't even take the time to note which part of my post was errant. Care to give it a more serious attempt?

Granite can answer you:

As a side note, trying to judge the "equality" of one marriage over another--couple by couple, person by person, situation by situation--is impossible.

The law is interested in rules, not exceptions.

:e4e:

 

[Granite]

Did you watch the youtube video that is the source of the recent conversation?

All due respect, zip, I don't expect you to believe me.

 

[Uberpod1]

:chuckle: They must make 'em different where you come from.

No. They have the same equipment as you in working order (and in principle more grey matter.)

 

[bybee]

Granite can answer you:



The law is interested in rules, not exceptions.

:e4e:

A thought, if marriage is only for procreation then woman needs man for only a very short time.