Page 9 of 9 FirstFirst ... 789
Results 161 to 177 of 177

Thread: Gay marriage bill passes in Minnesota

  1. #161
    Senior Member All-Star TheLeviathan's Avatar
    Posts
    4,072
    Like
    97
    Liked 341 Times in 194 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Ultima Ratio View Post
    Now that you've had a chance to critique the argument and my rejoinders, I'm very glad that circular reasoning was never charged. At last. Progress.
    Well, that's easy to stop doing it when you stop posting it. If anything, the real fault is the three pages it took for you to make YOUR points and not rely on Keys' circular rant.

  2. #162
    Senior Member All-Star TheLeviathan's Avatar
    Posts
    4,072
    Like
    97
    Liked 341 Times in 194 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by TheLeviathan View Post
    None of this defeats my charge. You have presented nothing here that indicates polygamy is any more questionable than your average heterosexual marriage. Any threat that exists in polygamy, exists in heterosexual marriages. In fact, there are far higher divorce rates in average heterosexual marriages, making their ability to meet 2-3 perhaps MORE dubious than polygamous ones. Your further points are just speculation. Whose to say there wouldn't be situations in which one woman would marry multiple men? In fact, reverse polygamy is probably more ideal than traditional marriage according to your criteria.
    I just realized...none of this is necessary. You have already rejected such charges when dealing with the infertile or elderly. There is nothing that gets you out of the box that polygamy "can" (using your term in your manner) offer all of those conditions. Incestuous couples "can" too (though you might be able to wiggle out of that just a bit)

    So, with that argument thoroughly in a box, I happily welcome you to the group of us saying we don't have to stick with just "traditional marriage" anymore! I argue we allow SSM, you argue for polygamy....tomato, tom(ah)to in this club!

  3. #163
    Senior Member All-Star Ultima Ratio's Avatar
    Posts
    1,655
    Like
    26
    Liked 26 Times in 13 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by TheLeviathan View Post
    I just realized...none of this is necessary. You have already rejected such charges when dealing with the infertile or elderly. There is nothing that gets you out of the box that polygamy "can" (using your term in your manner) offer all of those conditions. Incestuous couples "can" too (though you might be able to wiggle out of that just a bit)

    So, with that argument thoroughly in a box, I happily welcome you to the group of us saying we don't have to stick with just "traditional marriage" anymore! I argue we allow SSM, you argue for polygamy....tomato, tom(ah)to in this club!
    Since your aren't aware, I'll tell you that there are plenty of arguments against polygamy too. And I already noted that 3-5 aren't well met if a culture were polygamous.
    Man is born free, but everywhere he is in chains.

  4. #164
    Senior Member All-Star TheLeviathan's Avatar
    Posts
    4,072
    Like
    97
    Liked 341 Times in 194 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Ultima Ratio View Post
    Since your aren't aware, I'll tell you that there are plenty of arguments against polygamy too. And I already noted that 3-5 aren't well met if a culture were polygamous.
    "Arent well met" is as irrelevant as it was when the challenge of infertile couples was laid on you. I believe you said the "principle" of the definition is that they "can" regardless of whether they actually do. You are using the same sorts of arguments you already said don't apply on "principle". Please don't play weasels games...either your argument is bunk or you have a logical retort.

  5. #165
    Senior Member All-Star
    Posts
    4,608
    Like
    505
    Liked 214 Times in 147 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Willihammer View Post
    Let's say the social science comes back in a few years and says "of the 3 groups - children of single moms, children of gay parents, and children of hetero parents, the gay-family kids average score ranks in the middle on every metric."

    Then what?
    We still let them be couples. After all, black children are worse off in this country than white children, would you stop black couples from having children?
    Lighten up Francis....

  6. #166
    Super Moderator MVP USAFChief's Avatar
    Posts
    5,307
    Like
    1,393
    Liked 1,053 Times in 475 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Willihammer View Post
    Let's say the social science comes back in a few years and says "of the 3 groups - children of single moms, children of gay parents, and children of hetero parents, the gay-family kids average score ranks in the middle on every metric."

    Then what?
    I'd push for a constitutional amendment (or let the states handle it, one by one) outlawing single parenthood. Or at the least, denying single parents the same rights, privileges and benefits under the law as married people get.

    After all, that's your argument against SSM, amiright?

  7. #167
    Senior Member All-Star Willihammer's Avatar
    Posts
    2,377
    Like
    248
    Liked 190 Times in 108 Posts
    Blog Entries
    9
    I accept reality that there is no stopping gays getting married nor do I care if they do. Its the procreating part that gives me pause. There's a new social bloc we're going to be creating after doing this. Gay-family kids, whom I suspect will fall on average, somewhere between children of single parents and children of hetero parents in terms of math scores / teen pregnancy rates / crime / average income / whatever.

    If it turns out they skew towards the single mom end of the spectrum - I'm talking specifically about the kids born via sperm donor or foster mom (not adoptees), I think that would present a very tough scenario to work out of, especially after society collectively seems to be agreeing that gays have all the same rights - including productive ones, I assume, as heteros, despite the biological loopholes required in order for them to make families which could potentially be tightened or loosened with regulation / taxes / whatever.

    Its a bit of putting the wagon before the ox I know. I'm just surprised that that possibility, however small, hasn't really been considered, particularly given what we know about the gaping differences between hetero family kids and single mom kids.

  8. #168
    Senior Member All-Star Ultima Ratio's Avatar
    Posts
    1,655
    Like
    26
    Liked 26 Times in 13 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by TheLeviathan View Post
    "Arent well met" is as irrelevant as it was when the challenge of infertile couples was laid on you. I believe you said the "principle" of the definition is that they "can" regardless of whether they actually do. You are using the same sorts of arguments you already said don't apply on "principle". Please don't play weasels games...either your argument is bunk or you have a logical retort.
    Go argue for polygamy then. I've already said that a culture of polygamy is not one that survives and thrives because it doesn't foster a healthy masculine identity, the transformation of adolescents into sexually responsible adults, and certainly doesn't foster the bonding of fathers to their boys -- it alienates them, they are in competition.

    I want to point out that were spending a lot time nitpicking this one argument, but again, the onus is on you to argue why polygamy or SSM should be incentivized by society.

    This is strategically nice to be on the offensive, I know. It makes it look like you have a stronger position if you discuss someone else's argument rather than shoring up you own.

    Yes, both heterosexaul monogamy and polygamy are relationships that produce progeny in principle. I still don't think you know what "in principle" means so I'll say it another way.

    Progeny is the natural consequence/end/goal/purpose -- the greek is 'telos' of heterosexual monogamy and polygamy.

    Progeny is an impossible consequence/end/goal/purpose of homosexual relationships regardless of number.

    The only principle guiding the acceptance (and approval I guess) of homosexual relationships as marriages can be love or fairness or something like that.

    There are some who think we shouldn't look at essential differences, natural law, and argue from principles so who knows. I don't. I know you haven't said this Levi.
    Man is born free, but everywhere he is in chains.

  9. #169
    Super Moderator MVP USAFChief's Avatar
    Posts
    5,307
    Like
    1,393
    Liked 1,053 Times in 475 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Ultima Ratio View Post
    The only principle guiding the acceptance (and approval I guess) of homosexual relationships as marriages can be love or fairness or something like that.
    If this is all about principle, then it seems to me that "love or fairness or something like that" allows for the acceptance of heterosexual relationships as marriage when said relationship has no chance of progeny. Why draw the line at SSMs?

    If this is all about progeny, what is the difference between allowing SSM's and allowing two 70 yr olds, male and female, to marry? Neither can produce children naturally.

  10. #170
    Senior Member All-Star
    Posts
    4,608
    Like
    505
    Liked 214 Times in 147 Posts
    That consideration has been considered ad nauseum wh......by many of those against it. "think of the children" type arguments were made here in MN and all over the country. In the end, this year at least, like most of the history of our nation, we decided to move toward more freedom and equality for all, not less. And for that, I'm pleased.
    Lighten up Francis....

  11. #171
    Senior Member All-Star
    Posts
    4,608
    Like
    505
    Liked 214 Times in 147 Posts
    btw, for me, freedom to be white, christian, and hetero is not really freedom in the principled sense. Freedom only has meaning when we fight for the freedom of those that are different than us, not the same as us. It's easy to fight for people just like us, it's a lot harder to fight for people to be free to be different than us. That fight is the fight of the US, or what the US supposedly represents.
    Lighten up Francis....

  12. #172
    Senior Member All-Star TheLeviathan's Avatar
    Posts
    4,072
    Like
    97
    Liked 341 Times in 194 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Ultima Ratio View Post
    Go argue for polygamy then. I've already said that a culture of polygamy is not one that survives and thrives because it doesn't foster a healthy masculine identity, the transformation of adolescents into sexually responsible adults, and certainly doesn't foster the bonding of fathers to their boys -- it alienates them, they are in competition.
    I'm done on this after this post. Your argument is boxed and you refuse to see it. It's boxed by your own arguments.

    These are all your opinions of polygamy, they have nothing to do with the idea that polygamy (the marriage of more than two people) "can" do to fit your premise. None of what you stated proves that these are "impossible" for polygamist. The fact - the truth - is that it CAN do all of those things. You cannot prove it false. Not to mention you are presupposing polygamy is only a male with a harem, I've never said anything about that. Your definition, as stated, is not "false" for polygamy. Not any moreso than it would be for hetero couples that can't get pregnant or the elderly. You made the terms about "can" they do this so that homosexuals would fail a few of them.

    In your words - you defined it as such to make some of your definition was "impossible" for homosexual couples. Strictly (truthfully) speaking - none of those conditions are "impossible" for a polygamist marriage.

    Well, polygamists don't fail your premises. They "can", it is not "impossible" - your argument fails to exclude them. So either you accept the consequences of your argument or you amend it. There is no wiggle out.

    And this is far from nitpicking - this is taking your argument and applying it. I'm undermining your intentions with it to show that this argument is only crafted to suppress gay marriage. (If you remember, you threw the same gauntlet at Brock) If you had a principled argument, you'd accept the consequences - which include polygamy being worthy of fostering.
    Last edited by TheLeviathan; 05-17-2013 at 11:38 AM.

  13. #173
    Senior Member All-Star TheLeviathan's Avatar
    Posts
    4,072
    Like
    97
    Liked 341 Times in 194 Posts
    Let me clean tht up....your principle, nature, etc argument was designed to omit homosexuals because no matter what else is true, homosexuals by their nature cannot (it is impossible) reproduce on their own.

    Not a single one of your premises is impossible (strictly speaking as you have been) for any polygamous relationship. Hence it fits with "traditional" marriage as meeting 1-5. You are welcome to show an "impossibility" but they don't exist. The best you can show is difficulty not impossibility. It passes your argument with flying colors.

  14. #174
    Senior Member All-Star Ultima Ratio's Avatar
    Posts
    1,655
    Like
    26
    Liked 26 Times in 13 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by TheLeviathan View Post
    Let me clean tht up....your principle, nature, etc argument was designed to omit homosexuals because no matter what else is true, homosexuals by their nature cannot (it is impossible) reproduce on their own.

    Not a single one of your premises is impossible (strictly speaking as you have been) for any polygamous relationship. Hence it fits with "traditional" marriage as meeting 1-5. You are welcome to show an "impossibility" but they don't exist. The best you can show is difficulty not impossibility. It passes your argument with flying colors.
    Not that it matters, because I'm as ready as anyone to stop, but the "in principle" I used to explain the essential difference between SS and Hetero relationships was chiefly concerned with whether procreation were possible. I hope Chief reads this when he says that maybe we shouldn't allow two 70 year olds to marry. Fair question but I've answered this so many times I don't know what else to say. Age is accidental to one's nature. Some 30 year olds are infertile. 70 year old women can no longer bear children. "In principle" kinda means what is the case "generally" -- I purposely don't use this word though, because in principle is stronger but maybe that will help.

    You see, it's not just that most, any or a few homosexual relationships can never end in procreation. It's all.

    Horribly, some babies are born with mental disabilities. The fact that some humans are mentally disabled does not change the nature of man as a rational animal. Man is, in principle, a rational animal. Marriage as one man one women is, in principle, a union that begets children. Unions of one man to one man are, in principle, unions precluding procreation.

    Now that I think about it, using the word "unique" is better, and definitely better than "in general" which connotes likelihood and empircal counting to see what's the case. So scrub that.

    Moving on. I can't agree with you more than I already have. Some polygamists may very well meet some, most or all of 1-5. Will all, once we look at he nature of this relationship? Can it in principle? I agree its at least arguable, where the simple fact of procreation or not is a physical impossibility. I agreed that some homosexual couples may very well out-parent single and some heterosexual parents. Great. We don't, at least I don't, argue from accidents and exceptions.

    Ok, I'm bored.

    It passes your argument with flying colors
    Fly those colors brother.
    Last edited by Ultima Ratio; 05-17-2013 at 03:35 PM.
    Man is born free, but everywhere he is in chains.

  15. #175
    Senior Member Double-A
    Posts
    184
    Like
    4
    Liked 4 Times in 4 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by PseudoSABR View Post
    Pretty soon, we'll be able to marry our goats, cartoon characters, and figments of our imagination. And all such choices would affect me so very much, damn them!
    I marry a figment of my imagination every time my wife travels. Fortunately, try as I might, this never includes procreation.

  16. #176
    Senior Member All-Star TheLeviathan's Avatar
    Posts
    4,072
    Like
    97
    Liked 341 Times in 194 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Ultima Ratio View Post
    Not that it matters, because I'm as ready as anyone to stop, but the "in principle" I used to explain the essential difference between SS and Hetero relationships was chiefly concerned with whether procreation were possible.
    And there it is - you picked procreation specifically to push out the group you don't want to include. Your principle is to exclude SSM and you now back off your claims when push comes to shove. Not two posts ago you talked "impossibility" and now its about "mostly". That's embarrassing. Just say nothing. Its better than changing your argument to save face.

    oving on. I can't agree with you more than I already have. Some polygamists may very well meet some, most or all of 1-5. Will all, once we look at he nature of this relationship? Can it in principle? I
    The answer is yes. There is nothing about "a marriage between more than two people" that precludes any of your premises. There is nothing that is contrary to the nature of that. You were actually using that idea properly, but now you back off it when it doesn't work for your argument. How convenient.

    You don't get to apply cultural tendencies - polygamy, definitionally, does not violate any premise in its nature. None. Thanks for playing though, if you hadn't been so pretentious about your own logical certainty I'd let it slide. BUt you chose the playing field, don't scurry and whine when your own game fails you.

    Ok, I'm bored.
    Wrong "b" word. Yours is four letters and ends in "eat". I'd quit too. (And that was intentionally rude. where I come from failed logic is failed logic. If you don't want to admit faulty premises, withdraw. Say you are going to rethink your position. Whatever.

    But changing arguments? Pathetic)
    Last edited by TheLeviathan; 05-17-2013 at 04:38 PM.

  17. #177
    Pixel Monkey MVP Brock Beauchamp's Avatar
    Posts
    6,688
    Like
    32
    Liked 769 Times in 422 Posts
    Blog Entries
    6
    Okay, I'm just going to go ahead and say this thread has run its course.

Page 9 of 9 FirstFirst ... 789

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
©2014 TwinsCentric, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Interested in advertising with Twins Daily? Click here.