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

[zippy2006]

Why do you say that?

Because of the benefits they give married couples, the positive aid. Healthy families and healthy marriages are essential to a healthy society.

 

[kmoney]

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.



Nope.



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.

If Keyes removed the word "always", would you think it is a sound argument?

 

[kmoney]

Because of the benefits they give married couples, the positive aid. Healthy families and healthy marriages are essential to a healthy society.

What benefits are you referring to?

 

[zippy2006]

What benefits are you referring to?

wiki

 

[kmoney]

wiki

I figured that's what you meant...

Now, how do you get from those benefits to saying that the government undoubtedly sees marriage as being about procreation and adding new members to society? Has the government stated their purpose with marriage to that effect?

 

[Granite]

Because of the benefits they give married couples, the positive aid. Healthy families and healthy marriages are essential to a healthy society.

Indeed. But there is no cookie cutter formula for a "healthy" family or marriage that is going to work for everyone.

 

[elohiym]

My point was that the government naturally sees the most utility in a married (heterosexual) couple. How exactly does this oppose that?

There is utility for society in parents (single, couples) raising children, not only their biological capacity to procreate.

 

[Son of Jack]

Indeed. But there is no cookie cutter formula for a "healthy" family or marriage that is going to work for everyone.

Of course, Granite, that brings up the question of whether you legislate toward the majority or the minority?

 

[zippy2006]

There is utility for society in parents (single, couples) raising children, not only their biological capacity to procreate.

Great. My question stands.

 

[Granite]

Of course, Granite, that brings up the question of whether you legislate toward the majority or the minority?

How about legislating in the name of fairness?

 

[Son of Jack]

How about legislating in the name of fairness?

Define fairness.

 

[Granite]

Define fairness.

"A system that looks out for the common interests of as many people as possible" comes to mind. If you're going to make this an issue of the majority versus the minority endorsing what constitutes an "acceptable" marriage amongst adults you're setting a downright terrifying precedent.

 

[zippy2006]

I figured that's what you meant...

Now, how do you get from those benefits to saying that the government undoubtedly sees marriage as being about procreation and adding new members to society? Has the government stated their purpose with marriage to that effect?

Sorry kmo, I'm not up for playing 20 questions at the moment (just finished playing 200 questions )

If you think the government is (and should be, mind you) handing out money to married couples for reasons other than societal benefit, then make the argument. I think my position is rather straightforward. :e4e:

 

[Son of Jack]

"A system that looks out for the common interests of as many people as possible" comes to mind.

I agree with that defintion. But, doesn't that sound like the majority?

If you're going to make this an issue of the majority versus the minority endorsing what constitutes an "acceptable" marriage amongst adults you're setting a downright terrifying precedent.

I've already made an argument that government and legislation has no place in defining marriage earlier in the thread. I wish you wouldn't always seem to carry such a huge chip on your shoulder, Granite. It was just a question.

 

[rexlunae]

Granite can answer you:



The law is interested in rules, not exceptions.

:e4e:

Most people are not murderers. Therefore, murderers are the exception rather than the rule. Therefore, the law is not interested in murderers. Right?

I don't think you've properly understood Granite.

 

[chrysostom]

Define fairness.

don't you have a dictionary?

 

[kmoney]

Sorry kmo, I'm not up for playing 20 questions at the moment (just finished playing 200 questions )

If you think the government is (and should be, mind you) handing out money to married couples for reasons other than societal benefit, then make the argument. I think my position is rather straightforward. :e4e:

Marriage comes with more benefits than money, but presumably all benefits/money given by the government is for societal good. But you didn't just say societal benefit. You said it was for procreation and adding new members into the society. Would you say that all the benefits for married couples are motivated by the belief that the married couple will have children?

 

[Town Heretic]

No dogma necessary.

Then no objective objection to my posit else and I'm good with that.

This is the crux. I meant it in the way that procreation via heterosexual couples is superfluous to society. That the heterosexuals are rendering society no service by their procreation.

Not seeing how this attaches to the argument against or addresses the fundamental problem of you being denied the vote because you're Catholic and we don't cotton to those down here.

So at best you'd say that the homosexual couple provides half the service,

No. Actually I said at best they can do precisely what any heterosexual couple can do, if by another means (which was the point of introducing the c-section as opposed to natural birthing process). At worst they're just like many childless marriages and can be as fulfilling or vacuous as any...one of the many benefits of a union is the stability and emotional connection and encouragement it brings to the parties to it. I had that for some time with my wife and had I never had a son it would have been of inestimable value to me and contributed greatly to my happiness and productivity. Jack is a wonderful addition and surprise, but neither the reason I wed nor the success of our marriage.

and that's only if you split procreation and rearing equally (absurd imo).

I don't know what you mean by that or why you find it absurd, so I can't really do much more than :idunno:

A married couple provides a procreative and supporting environment for a family,

No. A married couple may and can. And so can a homosexual couple, only they need assistance, as I noted. In that way they resemble the heterosexual couple in a fertility clinic or undergoing a c-section, without which their gender specific capacities would amount to naught, procreatively.

Total 'equality' simply isn't warranted from the civil point of view.

That's like suggesting the mentally challenged don't merit right because they can't exercise it as you or I do. And equality isn't something warranted, it's something we're born to in our society. That's one of the things our Founding Fathers nailed in principle, however they failed it in application.

:e4e:

 

[Breathe]

Speak for yourself, please.

We didn't get five children through less romance.

That's not romance. It's hurry-up-the-kids-are-all-asleep-at-the-same-time-its-a-miracle sex.

 

[Granite]

I agree with that defintion. But, doesn't that sound like the majority?

It does, but I think there's a difference between, say, a 52-48% split and the needs of society as a whole where the exceptions made are really, really considered unusual or simply beyond the pale. Put another way: we don't consider the "minority" of people to be thieves; we consider breaking the law a violation of the social code. That thieves happen to be lawbreakers has nothing to do with any kind of referendum on the matter.

I wish you wouldn't always seem to carry such a huge chip on your shoulder, Granite. It was just a question.

And I really wish some of you guys would stop reading the tea leaves and just read what I actually say, not what you think I did. Once the door's open to judgments on the validity or "equality" of marriage all bets are off. I don't much care for the mentality I see from some folks on this thread...