7
   

Gay Marriage & Conflict Resolution

 
 
jackowens
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Jul, 2010 03:18 pm
@parados,
Dear parados,

In reply to your post of 7/7/10:

Quote:
"Under the rules shouldn't we deal with the contradiction in your first statement before we move on to anything else?"

See below.

However, I'm not sure of what contradiction you're talking. You've accused me of at least two.

Please identify what I'm both affirming and denying. But, please, give me a specific point to avoid confusion.

Quote:
"You have not agreed that 'their preferred method' is NOT allowed when you limit their choices to not include their preferred method. Until you agree with that, you are violating rule 4."

If that's what you consider a contradiction on my part, I confess it's not clear to me as a contradiction.

A contradiction occurs when the same thing is affirmed and denied.

Permit me to prescind that.

Quote:
"You have not agreed that 'their preferred method' is NOT allowed..."

To repeat what I said earlier, we have to clarify what "their preferred method" is.

If that means having same-sex marriage receive community recognition/approval, I do agree, despite what you say, that "their preferred method" in that sense is not allowed/accepted. If, on the other hand, "their preferred method" means the ceremony and place for it that the couple selects, "their preferred method" is allowed and I have no personal objection to "their preferred method" in that sense.

Quote:
"...when you limit their choices to not include their preferred method."

I'm lost there. Why should I not "limit their choices" if, as I believe --mistakenly or not-- that homosexuality is a sexual perversion?

I fail to see a contradiction --affirmation and denial of the same thing-- in that.

Now going to rule #6, let's divide our exchange into concurrent individual approaches: You want to discuss a) what you see as a contradiction on my part, which is fine with me, and I'd like to pursue b) what I pointed out to failures art as premise #1, which you already have in my previous (7/7/10) post:

Marriage aside and talking about homosexuality itself, it is a sexual perversion because it involves a reproductive drive that is misdirected. It drives the individual to a target that makes the reproductive system non-functional. Homo sapiens, having a sexual reproductive system, each individual member of the species should be driven to a live, postpubescent member of the same species and opposite sex.

1. What fallacy or contradiction does that involve me in?

2. What question is being begged?

Regards,

Jack
parados
 
  3  
Reply Wed 7 Jul, 2010 03:50 pm
@jackowens,
You are affirming that they can use their preferred method at the same time you are limiting what they can do.

You are affirming they can use a preferred method
You are denying the preferred method of having their 'marriages' recognized.

You already agreed they would prefer that their unions be recognized by society.
parados
 
  3  
Reply Wed 7 Jul, 2010 03:52 pm
@jackowens,
Quote:
If that means having same-sex marriage receive community recognition/approval, I do agree, despite what you say, that "their preferred method" in that sense is not allowed/accepted. If, on the other hand, "their preferred method" means the ceremony and place for it that the couple selects, "their preferred method" is allowed and I have no personal objection to "their preferred method" in that sense.

Then you are equivocating. You are changing the meaning of words.
"Their preferred method" doesn't mean what a reader would assume.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  3  
Reply Wed 7 Jul, 2010 03:53 pm
@jackowens,
Quote:
I'm lost there. Why should I not "limit their choices" if, as I believe --mistakenly or not-- that homosexuality is a sexual perversion?

Your original statement doesn't "limit their choices". It is contradictory. What you said is clearly not what you meant.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  3  
Reply Wed 7 Jul, 2010 04:03 pm
@jackowens,
Quote:
Marriage aside and talking about homosexuality itself, it is a sexual perversion because it involves a reproductive drive that is misdirected. It drives the individual to a target that makes the reproductive system non-functional. Homo sapiens, having a sexual reproductive system, each individual member of the species should be driven to a live, postpubescent member of the same species and opposite sex.

1. What fallacy or contradiction does that involve me in?

2. What question is being begged?

I have already pointed out how this is a faulty premise.
If targeting someone that makes the reproductive system non functional is sexual perversion then wanting to have sex with a female over 50 would be sexual perversion. It has been known for centuries if not thousands of years that women of a certain age can no longer reproduce. Your claim of sexual perversion is vague because you only apply it to homosexuality.
0 Replies
 
jackowens
 
  0  
Reply Wed 7 Jul, 2010 04:03 pm
@parados,
Dear parados,

In reply to your post of 7/7/10:

You didn't complete your post. Please check point #6 of our method.

To repeat:

Marriage aside and talking about homosexuality itself, it is a sexual perversion because it involves a reproductive drive that is misdirected. It drives the individual to a target that makes the reproductive system non-functional. It can't possibly function. Homo sapiens, having a sexual reproductive system, each individual member of the species should be driven to a live, postpubescent member of the same species and opposite sex.

1. What fallacy or contradiction does that involve me in?

2. What question is being begged?

Regards,

Jack

parados
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Jul, 2010 06:57 am
@jackowens,
Answered just before your post.


If you really want to know how you are begging the question..
This is your argument although you try to hide it with a premise that no one agrees with.

wrongful sex includes homosexuality
therefor homosexuality is wrongful sex.
jackowens
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 8 Jul, 2010 02:52 pm
@parados,
Dear parados,

In reply to your posts of 7/7-8/10:

Quote:
"I have already pointed out how this is a faulty premise."

But you haven't pointed out what makes it faulty. What is the fallacy or contradiction it involves me in?

Quote:
"If targeting someone that makes the reproductive system non functional is sexual perversion then wanting to have sex with a female over 50 would be sexual perversion."

First of all, if you're talking about a man, wanting to copulate with a woman over fifty, he is wanting to do so with a live, post-pubescent member of the same species and opposite sex.

No fallacy or contradiction there. Right?

Second, if you're going to add age as a factor, if a man is driven to prefer to copulate with a woman over 50, with her waning physical capabilities, rather than a fully blossomed woman of 20 --all other factors aside from age being the same, of course-- something is wrong with his reproductive drive. Why would he want to do that? Doesn't seem very realistic to me.

Do you see a fallacy or contradiction there?

Both of those questions take a "yes" or "no" answer.

Quote:
"Your claim of sexual perversion is vague because you only apply it to homosexuality."

No. I apply it to necrophiles, pedophiles and bestialist, too.

Quote:
"You are affirming that they can use their preferred method at the same time you are limiting what they can do."

Despite my attempt in my previous post to make a distinction in the ambiguity of how you're using the term "their preferred method", you seem to be deliberately scrambling the two uses.

Does "their preferred method" refer to:

1. The couple's choice of the place, time, guests and kind of ceremony? Or,

2. The goal of having their ceremony recognized/approved as a part of the cultural institution of marriage by the community?

Quote:
"If you really want to know how you are begging the question..
This is your argument although you try to hide it with a premise that no one agrees with.

wrongful sex includes homosexuality
therefor homosexuality is wrongful sex."


Another jumble.

Without getting into how you're phrasing that, homosexuality can't be categorized as wrongful sex unless its wrongfulness is determined to be true or false. Until that is done, a therefore is not justified.

What is hidden?

Regards,

Jack


parados
 
  3  
Reply Thu 8 Jul, 2010 03:46 pm
@jackowens,
By starting with the premise that "wrongful sex includes homosexuality" you are begging the question.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  3  
Reply Thu 8 Jul, 2010 05:23 pm
@jackowens,
You do realize jack that you have made a lot of conclusions that you state aren't justified.

'gay marriage would institutionalize sexual perversion' is a conclusion on your part based on your contention that "sexual perversion includes gay sex."
jackowens
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Jul, 2010 11:48 pm
@parados,
Dear parados,

In reply to your two posts of 7/8/10:

Despite our agreement on point #6 of our method, I count seven questions or requests for information in my previous post (7/8/10) with no answer to any of them. You can do better than that.

We can continue when you start answering.

Regards,

Jack
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Jul, 2010 05:39 am
@jackowens,
Quote:

But you haven't pointed out what makes it faulty. What is the fallacy or contradiction it involves me in?

Already answered. Asking questions repeatedly after they have been answered isn't helping you any jack.

Quote:
First of all, if you're talking about a man, wanting to copulate with a woman over fifty, he is wanting to do so with a live, post-pubescent member of the same species and opposite sex.

No fallacy or contradiction there. Right?
Already answered.

You are begging the question because you define it specifically to include homosexuality and little else. You have changed the definition as we poked holes in it. It originally was only sex that wasn't for reproduction and now you have redefined it to include sex that isn't for the purpose of reproduction that doesn't include a post pubescent woman.


There are facts, assumptions and conclusions.
Fact - people have sex.
Assumption - any sex not for reproduction is perverted.
Conclusion - gay sex is perverted.

Your conclusion is in your assumption. If you want to argue that you are not making conclusions then you are not arguing with logic.

Quote:
Second, if you're going to add age as a factor, if a man is driven to prefer to copulate with a woman over 50, with her waning physical capabilities, rather than a fully blossomed woman of 20 --all other factors aside from age being the same, of course-- something is wrong with his reproductive drive. Why would he want to do that? Doesn't seem very realistic to me.

Do you see a fallacy or contradiction there?
Yes, I do see a contradiction there. Marriages that last over 30 years have people that copulate with women over 50. They WANT to do it. What doesn't seem "realistic" to you is instead a fact that exists and is easily shown. Women over the age of 50 get married. They WANT to do it. They have sex in that marriage. Your view of reality isn't accurate.

Quote:
Despite my attempt in my previous post to make a distinction in the ambiguity of how you're using the term "their preferred method", you seem to be deliberately scrambling the two uses.

Does "their preferred method" refer to:

1. The couple's choice of the place, time, guests and kind of ceremony? Or,

2. The goal of having their ceremony recognized/approved as a part of the cultural institution of marriage by the community?
I am not scrambling the uses. I am pointing out that YOUR use is ambiguous and is an equivocation fallacy because of it. Your attempt to force a narrow definition that has meaning that is not normally associated with the way you first used it in your opening statement only reinforces the fallacy.

Quote:

Another jumble.

Without getting into how you're phrasing that, homosexuality can't be categorized as wrongful sex unless its wrongfulness is determined to be true or false. Until that is done, a therefore is not justified.

What is hidden?

Either you admit that homosexual sex can't be categorized as wrongful or you don't. You have made numerous statements that clearly assume it IS wrong.

Answer this question jack.
If there is no assumption that homosexual sex is wrong then how can gay marriage institutional sexual perversion?
You are trying to hide the fact that YOU made the assumption that gay sex is wrong and then made statements that clearly accept that assumption as fact and/or use that assumption to reach a conclusion.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Jul, 2010 05:45 am
@jackowens,
Quote:
No. I apply it to necrophiles, pedophiles and bestialist, too.


Oh, I see you have introduced "live" into your definition now so it doesn't appear quite as tailored to homosexuality.

You aren't using logic at all jack. You are merely trying to justify your position and then demanding we all pretend you are using logic.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Jul, 2010 08:05 am
@jackowens,
Quote:
Premise #1: Marriage aside and talking about homosexuality itself, it is a sexual perversion because it involves a reproductive drive that is misdirected. It drives the individual to a target that makes the reproductive system non-functional. Homo sapiens, having a sexual reproductive system, each individual member of the species should be driven to a live, postpubescent member of the same species and opposite sex.


This premise is false because -
It would mean that rape is not a sexual perversion.
It would mean that masturbation would be sexual perversion

If we accept your claim that masturbation is NOT sexual perversion when a person also has sex with a member of the opposite sex then it would mean that the homosexual acts of a bisexual person would not be perversion because they also have sex with a live postpubescent member of the same species.

That means the act of homosexual sex itself is not sexual perversion but only the exclusivity of it makes it perversion.

By that argument, a marriage between 3 people with at least one of a different sex would be OK since it doesn't institutionalize sexual perversion.


Your premise is falsifiable because you make SOME exceptions and not others.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Jul, 2010 08:51 am
@jackowens,

Let's deal with this statement of yours Jack

Quote:

My vote would be to permit homosexuals to marry, which they already can and do, by means of their preferred procedure as long as others aren't obliged to approve of such marriages.


Marry and marriage have 2 meanings
1. the state in which 2 people have a legal and social contract making them a union
2. The ceremony where people are joined

Your statement is
My vote would be to permit homosexuals to 1/2 which they can already do, by means of their preferred procedure of 1/2 as long as others aren't obliged to approve of such 1/2.

In first reading your statement everyone assumed you meant definition 1 for each of the 3 instances of the term.



So.. which is it? Pick a letter.

A. )My vote would be to permit homosexuals to have legal and social contracts, which they already can and do, by means of their preferred procedure of legal and social contracts as long as others aren't obliged to approve of such legal and social contracts.

B.) My vote would be to permit homosexuals to have a ceremony, which they already can and do, by means of their preferred procedure of a ceremony as long as others aren't obliged to approve of such legal and social contracts.

C.) My vote would be to permit homosexuals to have a ceremony, which they already can and do, by means of their preferred procedure of a ceremony as long as others aren't obliged to approve of such ceremonies.
jackowens
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Jul, 2010 03:11 pm
@parados,
Dear parados,

In reply to your four posts of 7/9/10:

(Jack:) What is hidden?"

Quote:
"Either you admit that homosexual sex can't be categorized as wrongful or you don't."

I do admit that homosexual sex can be categorized as wrongful, but, to avoid confusion, my way of exressing "wrongful" is to say that it is a sexual perversion.

What is hidden?

Quote:
"Answer this question jack.

If there is no assumption that homosexual sex is wrong then how can gay marriage institutional sexual perversion?"

There is an assumption. I assume --the truth/falsity of which is still up in the air-- that homosexuality is a sexual perversion.

"So.. which is it? Pick a letter."

C.

Since I see no other questions in your post, I'll sign off with the above.

Regards,

Jack
parados
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Jul, 2010 04:23 pm
@jackowens,
Quote:

I do admit that homosexual sex can be categorized as wrongful, but, to avoid confusion, my way of exressing "wrongful" is to say that it is a sexual perversion.


Did you or did you not reach a conclusion and state that conclusion based on your thinking homosexual sex is wrong?
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Jul, 2010 04:23 pm
@jackowens,
Quote:
"So.. which is it? Pick a letter."

C.


C means your statement is a logical fallacy in that it is an equivocation.
jackowens
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Jul, 2010 07:31 pm
@parados,
Dear parados,

In reply to your post of 7/9/10:

I see no questions or request for information in your post, so I'll take it under advisement.

Meanwhile, for the seventh(?) time:

What is hidden?

Regards,

Jack
parados
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Jul, 2010 11:20 pm
@jackowens,
Quote:
I see no questions or request for information in your post, so I'll take it under advisement.

Oh.. so do you agree that your original statement was a fallacy? We have to agree or we can't move forward.

Your "I'll take it under advisement" isn't in your list of rules.
 

Related Topics

New York New York! - Discussion by jcboy
Prop 8? - Discussion by majikal
Gay Marriage - Discussion by blatham
Gay Marriage -- An Old Post Revisited - Discussion by pavarasra
Who doesn't back gay marriage? - Question by The Pentacle Queen
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 07/28/2021 at 09:10:02