RE: Same sex marriage
May 13, 2012 at 5:26 pm
(This post was last modified: May 13, 2012 at 5:49 pm by StatCrux.)
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. 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?
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.
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
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?
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.
(May 13, 2012 at 5:24 pm)genkaus Wrote: Apparently, even people in Vedic India understood the concept better than you do, since they classified humans in three genders - male, female and indeterminate.
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
