The main point, I think, is that, if we consider a sexual perversion as a misdirected reproductive drive, there certainly is a distinction between a) a heterosexual couple indulging in anal or oral sex as an erotic variation, where sooner or later the woman will be impregnated --multiple times-- and b) a homosexual couple where impregnation is simply impossible.
Question answered?
The main point, I think, is that, if we consider a sexual perversion as a misdirected reproductive drive, there certainly is a distinction between a) a heterosexual couple indulging in anal or oral sex as an erotic variation, where sooner or later the woman will be impregnated --multiple times-- and b) a homosexual couple where impregnation is simply impossible.
Question answered?
"In the case of marriage, your marriage in CA is recognized in each state because of FF&C. With the passage of the Defense of Marriage Act of 2004 (DOMA for brevity), it made it such that states could choose to not recognize same sex marriages from other states. This creates a direct contradiction in the law. DOMA violates the FF&C by picking and choosing, and the selection targets a specific group of citizens."
"You are using your belief as a valid premise, but you haven't supported it. Keep the horse before the cart."
"No. You used this fallacy in multiple ways and I described them previously."
"I composed a post that numerated the false premises I observed, and supported my claim. Read back."
"They still have sex, but there's no chance that it would produce a pregnancy. Wouldn't you have to conclude that every sex act between that man and woman is, by your definition, perverted?"
"Fine. I'll accept all of your conditions."
No. You have to make a distinction between the physical genitalia and the drive.
In the case that you present the genitalia may be faulty but the drive is on target.
Quote:"Fine. I'll accept all of your conditions."
Are they now our conditions rather than my conditions
Let me get this straight: non-procreative sex between a man and a woman is OK because their basic sexual drive is "on target,"
whereas non-procreative sex between a man and a man or a woman and a woman is not OK because their drives are "perverted."
That seems to be his "distinction".
Sorry, by the way, for arguing the matter with you. I'd clarify the matter with Jack himself, but I can't, see. He's giving me the silent treatment now that I've rejected his legalistic debating rules.
Dear parados,
In reply to your posts of 6`18/10:
(Jack:) "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."
Quote:"All I can say is that statement contradicts itself completely."
That's a start. Now please clarify by telling me what, precisely identified, I am both affirming and denying.
Quote:"There is no such thing as a marriage without recognition and by that recognition comes tacit approval."
Do those homosexuals who marry, regardless of community recognition, deny that they're married?
Quote:"Several questions have been asked of you but you haven't answered."
Please pick out and give me the --one-- most pertinent of the questions you believe I have failed to answer.
(Jack:) "We start with our agreement that there are such things as sexual perversions. If I'm questioned as to what I mean by a 'sexual perversion', my answer is that it is a misdirection of the reproductive drive.
Interesting.
Quote:"So by that definition can we assume that a female orgasm is a sexual perversion?"
If achieved by lesbian interaction, yes.
Quote:"Can we also assume that you think masturbation is a sexual perversion?"
If that is the individual's exclusive preference, yes.
Quote:Between consenting adults? No. There is only outside the norm. I would guess lot more people practice homosexuality than do bondage between a married man and woman (which certainly can lead to procreation).
Quote:"Now we are getting somewhere it appears but not quite where we wanted, is it?"
Who's "we"?
Do you believe that there are such things as sexual perversions?
Regards.
Jack
"Let me get this straight: non-procreative sex between a man and a woman is OK because their basic sexual drive is 'on target,' whereas non-procreative sex between a man and a man or a woman and a woman is not OK because their drives are 'perverted.'"
"I think I understand. But aren't you just equating the definitions of 'homosexual' and 'perverted?'"
"In other words, you object to homosexuals marrying because they are engaged in acts of perversion, but you define 'perversion' to mean, in effect, homosexuality."
"So you end up objecting to homosexuals marrying because they're homosexuals."
"That's not begging the question. That's not even an empty tautology. It's an ipse dixit."
"Nope, they'll always remain your conditions. I said I would accept them. I didn't say that I would adopt them."
"I'd clarify the matter with Jack himself, but I can't, see. He's giving me the silent treatment now that I've rejected his legalistic debating rules."
Quote:"I think I understand. But aren't you just equating the definitions of 'homosexual' and 'perverted?'"
Yes.
Quote:"That's not begging the question. That's not even an empty tautology. It's an ipse dixit."
Can you explain that? I'm assuming that you're accusing me of being involved in a fallacy or contradiction.
What is needed to make them our conditions? For instance, backing up a bit, is "the controversy over homosexual marriage should be solved factually, rationally and fairly" my contention or our contention?
"There are no conditions or circumstances that drive a necessity to ban homosexual marriage."
How and by whom is that determined?
Quote:"In the case of marriage, your marriage in CA is recognized in each state because of FF&C. With the passage of the Defense of Marriage Act of 2004 (DOMA for brevity), it made it such that states could choose to not recognize same sex marriages from other states. This creates a direct contradiction in the law. DOMA violates the FF&C by picking and choosing, and the selection targets a specific group of citizens."
As an anwer to that question, I'm in favor of diversity and state's rights regarding the acceptance of homosexual marriage. In other word, if we want to discard diversity and supplant it with unity, have the matter decided by the federal Supreme Court. You may not agree with me, but that is my answer to your question. Your question is not evaded.
Does that answer #2?
Quote:"You are using your belief as a valid premise, but you haven't supported it. Keep the horse before the cart."
The difficulty we are having with this point seems to be in regards to the difference between the words "proposition" and "premise".
I'm giving "homosexuality is a sexual perversion" as a proposition the truth or falsity of which is still up in the air. We have to decide which it is.
If we decide that it is false, we discard it. If we decide that it is true, then we can validly use it as a premise. The cart before the horse is to use the proposition as a premise before it has been determined to be true.
I am using "homosexuality is a sexual perversion" as a possibly false proposition, not a premise.
Does that clarify the confusion?
Quote:"No. You used this fallacy in multiple ways and I described them previously."
Alright. I'm assuming that the above is one of the multiple ways that you considered that I used it. Let's start with it and my clarification
Are we in agreement that the above explanation, in this use, makes sense in absolving me of being involved in the begging the question fallacy?
Quote:"I composed a post that numerated the false premises I observed, and supported my claim. Read back."
I did and am now on your #2
"You can make your conditions our conditions by dropping your insistence on conditions."
"Do you not think that recognition of marriage by society is approval?"
"If you don't think that your argument is moot and there is no reason to not let them marry as heterosexuals do using the same procedure under the law."
"Either recognition by society is approval which gives a basis for your argument or recognition by society is not approval and your argument against homosexual marriage fails."
"I have already said that I accept all of your conditions."
"How is a matter of a real outcome."
"If you wish to obstruct the rights of a group, you must demonstrate why it is a necessity."
"It would be better for you to address all of my unanswered questions in one post."
Yes, you've said that, but you've also asked me to drop all conditions. I don't find that inconsistency very reassuring.
(failures art:) "There are no conditions or circumstances that drive a necessity to ban homosexual marriage."
(Jack:) How and by whom is that determined?
Quote:"How is a matter of a real outcome."
But you're not saying how that real outcome arrived at?
Quote:"If you wish to obstruct the rights of a group, you must demonstrate why it is a necessity."
Who is the "you" in that sentence? And to whom must it be demonstrated and who gives approval of the sufficiency of the demonstration?
Quote:"It would be better for you to address all of my unanswered questions in one post."
I can't handle all the stuff you're bringing up in one post. It's too much. Generally, two or three points maybe. But what's your hurry?
Unanswered question #3:
3 (failures art:) "Simply put, what is more valuable: Imposing regulation on homosexual relationships or ethical application of the law?'
That's a bit confusing.
The current law in California is that homosexual marriages are not to be recognized. What is ethical and unethical application of that law? I'm not sure I understand your question.
(failures art:) "Perhaps an even simpler question is to ask if you expect the law to protect your rights?"
Yes.
(failures art:) "If so, what clause do you think will guarantee that you're protected fairly?"
If you're talking about protecting rights fairly, we have to get into what supposed rights we're talking about. We don't all have the same rights, since rights depend on conditions and circumstances as I pointed out in my post to you of 6/20/10. In addition rights are invented. For instance, according to the 5/10 issue of "Laptop" magazine, "four out of five people around the world consider Internet access to be a basic human right".
Does that answer #3?
(Jack:) "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."
(parados:) "All I can say is that statement contradicts itself completely."
Quote:"Do you not think that recognition of marriage by society is approval?"
Yes, I do. (affirmation)
Quote:"If you don't think that your argument is moot and there is no reason to not let them marry as heterosexuals do using the same procedure under the law."
I find that a bit jumbled because of your grammar.
Quote:"Either recognition by society is approval which gives a basis for your argument or recognition by society is not approval and your argument against homosexual marriage fails."
That's better gammatically, but where did I deny that recognition of marriage by society is approval?
Marriage is a social union or legal contract between individuals that creates kinship.
3. Since there must --and I emphasize must-- be an error in contradictory propositions, we must have test-criteria for identifying it (or them). To get away from subjectivity, and in the interest of simplicity, I suggest that we limit those test-criteria to fallacies and contradictions, nothing more. In other words, neither you nor I will be accused of being involved in an error unless it be a fallacy or a contradiction. And, regarding fallacies, the word is all too frequently used loosely. Fallacies have names. If the accusation of being guilty of using a fallacy is made, a) the name of the fallacy and b) how it is being applied will be given. Otherwise the only test-criterion of error will be contradictions.
