Posts: 390
Threads: 8
Joined: September 9, 2011
Reputation:
2
RE: Same sex marriage
May 13, 2012 at 3:10 pm
(This post was last modified: May 13, 2012 at 3:11 pm by StatCrux.)
(May 13, 2012 at 3:00 pm)genkaus Wrote: (May 13, 2012 at 2:10 pm)StatCrux Wrote: Read what I said, "open to procreation in principle" not the principle of procreation, there is a huge distinction. I'm not saying that all individual marriages must be capable of producing offspring. Same sex marriages are not in principle open to procreation.
Marriages between infertile couples or with post-menopausal women are also not capable of producing offspring. They too are not "in principle open to procreation". Try and understand the complete implications of your own damn arguments.
I do fully understand, you don't. Infertile couples do not invalidate the principle of male-female unions being open to procreation. I'm not saying that all unions must be capable of procreation, I'm saying that in principle the definition of marriage is a procreative union. Individual extreme or special cases do not invalidate the argument.
Posts: 1298
Threads: 42
Joined: January 2, 2012
Reputation:
32
RE: Same sex marriage
May 13, 2012 at 3:12 pm
(May 13, 2012 at 3:10 pm)StatCrux Wrote: (May 13, 2012 at 3:00 pm)genkaus Wrote: Marriages between infertile couples or with post-menopausal women are also not capable of producing offspring. They too are not "in principle open to procreation". Try and understand the complete implications of your own damn arguments.
I do fully understand, you don't. Infertile couples do not invalidate the principle of male-female unions being open to procreation. I'm not saying that all unions must be capable of procreation, I'm saying that in principle the definition of marriage is a procreative union. Individual extreme or special cases do not invalidate the argument.
So why can't one of your exceptions be same-sex marriage?
Posts: 3188
Threads: 8
Joined: December 9, 2011
Reputation:
31
RE: Same sex marriage
May 13, 2012 at 3:13 pm
(This post was last modified: May 13, 2012 at 3:14 pm by genkaus.)
(May 13, 2012 at 3:10 pm)StatCrux Wrote: I do fully understand, you don't. Infertile couples do not invalidate the principle of male-female unions being open to procreation. I'm not saying that all unions must be capable of procreation, I'm saying that in principle the definition of marriage is a procreative union. Individual extreme or special cases do not invalidate the argument.
Why not? If the validity of the principle does not rely on its universal applicability then by definition that argument is invalidated.
Posts: 390
Threads: 8
Joined: September 9, 2011
Reputation:
2
RE: Same sex marriage
May 13, 2012 at 3:26 pm
(May 13, 2012 at 3:12 pm)Tobie Wrote: (May 13, 2012 at 3:10 pm)StatCrux Wrote: I do fully understand, you don't. Infertile couples do not invalidate the principle of male-female unions being open to procreation. I'm not saying that all unions must be capable of procreation, I'm saying that in principle the definition of marriage is a procreative union. Individual extreme or special cases do not invalidate the argument.
So why can't one of your exceptions be same-sex marriage?
Because same sex unions in principle are not open to procreation. An infertile marriage remains in principle open to procreation. That is the distinction.
Posts: 3188
Threads: 8
Joined: December 9, 2011
Reputation:
31
RE: Same sex marriage
May 13, 2012 at 3:29 pm
(May 13, 2012 at 3:26 pm)StatCrux Wrote: Because same sex unions in principle are not open to procreation. An infertile marriage remains in principle open to procreation. That is the distinction.
No, actually, its not. Neither is open to procreation in principle, in theory or in reality.
By the by, advances in genetic research would ensure soon enough that same-sex couples would be open to procreation. Can we count on you as a staunch gay-marriage activist then?
Posts: 390
Threads: 8
Joined: September 9, 2011
Reputation:
2
RE: Same sex marriage
May 13, 2012 at 3:31 pm
(May 13, 2012 at 3:13 pm)genkaus Wrote: (May 13, 2012 at 3:10 pm)StatCrux Wrote: I do fully understand, you don't. Infertile couples do not invalidate the principle of male-female unions being open to procreation. I'm not saying that all unions must be capable of procreation, I'm saying that in principle the definition of marriage is a procreative union. Individual extreme or special cases do not invalidate the argument.
Why not? If the validity of the principle does not rely on its universal applicability then by definition that argument is invalidated.
So if I make a statement of "men have a penis, women have a vagina" using your logic one man without a penis would invalidate the statement? Is that what you are proposing? I've seen this reasoning before....
Posts: 2694
Threads: 42
Joined: May 6, 2012
Reputation:
43
RE: Same sex marriage
May 13, 2012 at 3:34 pm
Obviously, if there are men without penises, the blanket statement "Men have a penis" would be too general.
Posts: 1066
Threads: 248
Joined: February 6, 2012
Reputation:
7
RE: Same sex marriage
May 13, 2012 at 3:35 pm
Ok guys I think StatCrux has made there point. Know I am boring of you try to change there mind, it is obviously fixed and there no way were going to change there closed mind, or even open it, I wasted enough time on them as it is and frankly boring. lets leave them alone, I know a lost cause when I see one.
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful" - Edward Gibbon (Offen misattributed to Lucius Annaeus Seneca or Seneca the Younger) (Thanks to apophenia for the correction)
'I am driven by two main philosophies:
Know more about the world than I knew yesterday and lessen the suffering of others. You'd be surprised how far that gets you' - Neil deGrasse Tyson
"Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it." - Mark Twain
Posts: 12806
Threads: 158
Joined: February 13, 2010
Reputation:
111
RE: Same sex marriage
May 13, 2012 at 3:35 pm
Haha, the OP says "start an all out war with the church."
For pity's sake. No one has to use gay marriage as a ruse to do that. There is reason enough, and better reason, without it.
Posts: 2694
Threads: 42
Joined: May 6, 2012
Reputation:
43
RE: Same sex marriage
May 13, 2012 at 3:43 pm
(May 13, 2012 at 3:35 pm)Shell B Wrote: Haha, the OP says "start an all out war with the church."
For pity's sake. No one has to use gay marriage as a ruse to do that. There is reason enough, and better reason, without it.
Indeed. These bigots have a hard time understand that this is an issue of equality and human love.
|
![[Image: SigBarSping_zpscd7e35e1.png]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=i169.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fu224%2FUchiha_Kina%2FTags%2FSigBarSping_zpscd7e35e1.png)
