(May 13, 2012 at 5:26 pm)StatCrux Wrote: In summary so far, I claimed that the union of a male and female in principle is open to procreation, same sex unions are not.
Except, your so called "general rule", is not a general rule at all.
(May 13, 2012 at 5:26 pm)StatCrux Wrote: Genkaus raised the issue of infertile couples saying that invalidates the argument.
In comparison, I asked for a definition of male and female, but raised the issue of AIS, so the question is does AIS invalidate the definitions of male and female?
And the answer to that was, yes, it would.
(May 13, 2012 at 5:26 pm)StatCrux Wrote: I would say that extreme examples or exceptions do not invalidate the general rule. we couldn't function in society if we used every single extreme exception to general rules as a way of dismissing that general rule.
Unless we can find that the rule is not applicable, the exception would require a reconfiguration of the rule. A general rule is invalidated by an exception.
(May 13, 2012 at 5:26 pm)StatCrux Wrote: A universally applicable definition of male and female. Or is there no such thing as male and female? If there is, give a universally applicable definition.
I understand it just fine, what I'm asking you for is a definition of each category, (male and female would suffice) that, in your own terms, is "universally applicable" otherwise the definition is invalid.
"If the validity of the principle does not rely on its universal applicability then by definition that argument is invalidated" Genkaus
It is quite clear to anyone of sound mind that male and female do exist, but for every definition an exception can be found, it would be absurd to then say it must mean that male and female don't really exist. In the same way it can be clearly seen that male and female unions are procreative in nature, using exceptions does not invalidate the general rule.
exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis
Bullshit. Just because we don't know the exact definition does not mean that there cannot be one. Clearly, males and females do exist. Also clearly, there are beings which cannot be classified as either according to existing definitions - thereby showing the existing definitions are incorrect. Once we find the exception, we must reform the definition in order for better classification. We may continue using the outdated, invalidated "general rule", but with the full knowledge that it is incorrect and would be replaced as soon as a more suitable one is available.
With regards to marriage, since your "general rule" is obviously invalid, a new one is required and is present. Therefore, rather than clinging on to that notion, you should focus on the robustness of the new concept.