Gay Marriage & Conflict Resolution

@jackowens,

But Jack, you aren't in agreement with these rules you post. Saying you are, doesn't make it so. Beyond that, I must say it's a bit obnoxious to try to put this off on others like they need to make some sort of decision if they want debate to continue.

If this debate ends, it's because of your choices.

A
R
T

1 Reply

@failures art,

Dear failures art,
In reply to your posts of 6/25-26/10:

Quote:

"My answer: No."

Quote:

"It is perfectly reasonable."

I assume your "No" is a typo; otherwise I'm lost.

If I can depend on your "It is perfectly reasonable," and no changes in our method/flooring are needed, I'll continue.

Quote:

"My question to you is are you willing to be a reasonable person?"

Yes if reasonable doesn't mean do I follow Gay Liberation ideology, with which this thread seems to be rife.

Quote:

"If you want to call foul, then YOU present the logical fallacy that I (or anyone else) has made and allow for us to restate or withdraw."

First, I assume you no longer care to continue with your accusation of my evading your questions. We're up to #3 now on that accusation.

Second, you accused me of the fallacy of begging the question regarding my proposition that homosexuality is a sexual perversion. I explained, quote, "That homosexuality is a sexual perversion assumed by me to be true in an absolute sense is not really the case. Based on what I consider to be factual and rational it is what I believe to be true, but I freely admit that I may be mistaken. That leaves the proposition up for refutation, which I invite."

You followed that with the accusation that I used the begging the question in mulitple ways; therefore I was not absolved from your accusations.
That was followed on your part with some confusing ideas about what I believe not making something true, which I acknowledged.

Let's return to that accusation of begging the question: please explain why my quote, above begs the question.

Quote:

"But Jack, you aren't in agreement with these rules you post. Saying you are, doesn't make it so. Beyond that, I must say it's a bit obnoxious to try to put this off on others like they need to make some sort of decision if they want debate to continue."

That's a start, failures art, but I can't do much with an accusation that general. Please be more specific: give me the number of the point of our agreement that I am contradicting and then what the specific contradiction is. And please, let parados speak for himself; I'm asking what the contradiction is in regard to our exchange.

Regards,

Jack

1 Reply

@jackowens,

jackowens wrote:

Quote:
"My answer: No."

Quote:
"It is perfectly reasonable."

I assume your "No" is a typo; otherwise I'm lost.

You're correct. That was a typo.

jackowens wrote:

If I can depend on your "It is perfectly reasonable," and no changes in our method/flooring are needed, I'll continue.

Quote:
"My question to you is are you willing to be a reasonable person?"

Yes if reasonable doesn't mean do I follow Gay Liberation ideology, with which this thread seems to be rife.

I must object here.

You are attempting to sidestep your own accountability by labeling any accusation against you as being a part of some sort of Gay Liberation Ideology.

Being reasonable is showing good form in debate. What you've attempted to do is apply rules to this debate which were already in effect, yet not follow them. When you've been called on this numerous times, you've attempted to shift blame onto other parties and posture as if proper debate depended on them agreeing to your rules.

I never planned to have a debate that was anything but factual, or cooperative. If you can't meet that burden on your own, then why should I take you serious?

I find your argument to be bigoted, and yet I'm fine to let you make the argument, because I'm fine defending my own ideas. If the opposing ideas here are nothing more than Gay Liberation theory, so be it. You still have to defend your ideas. I've never read any GLT, but apparently I've arrived at the same conclusions it does through logic and facts. Interesting isn't it?

jackowens wrote:

Quote:
"If you want to call foul, then YOU present the logical fallacy that I (or anyone else) has made and allow for us to restate or withdraw."

First, I assume you no longer care to continue with your accusation of my evading your questions. We're up to #3 now on that accusation.

It wasn't an accusation. It was fact. You had not answered the questions directly posed to you. This offense falls under the cooperation part of debate that you are not complying with.

You are still lagging far behind on those questions, and for someone complaining about the lack of cooperation, you have no leg to stand on. You've received a great deal of patience on this.

I've politely requested that you address these questions in one post so that I may continue my debate. I have, in your interest, put intentional effort not to add to the queue of questions so that you may catch up. You are not cooperating.

jackowens wrote:

Second, you accused me of the fallacy of begging the question regarding my proposition that homosexuality is a sexual perversion. I explained, quote, "That homosexuality is a sexual perversion assumed by me to be true in an absolute sense is not really the case. Based on what I consider to be factual and rational it is what I believe to be true, but I freely admit that I may be mistaken. That leaves the proposition up for refutation, which I invite."

You followed that with the accusation that I used the begging the question in mulitple ways; therefore I was not absolved from your accusations.
That was followed on your part with some confusing ideas about what I believe not making something true, which I acknowledged.

Let's return to that accusation of begging the question: please explain why my quote, above begs the question.

I've already explained this. I do not need to repeat myself. In short: the above is not begging the question by itself. The above is a debate all unto itself. The relevance of the above is a debate all to itself. The logical fallacy is that you use these as a premise in the debate about same sex marriage. If you need further explanation, please read back. I don't owe you additional explanation.

jackowens wrote:

Quote:
"But Jack, you aren't in agreement with these rules you post. Saying you are, doesn't make it so. Beyond that, I must say it's a bit obnoxious to try to put this off on others like they need to make some sort of decision if they want debate to continue."

That's a start, failures art, but I can't do much with an accusation that general. Please be more specific: give me the number of the point of our agreement that I am contradicting and then what the specific contradiction is.

Should I comply with your request when I've already explained what you're asking? Should I comply with your request given that you've done so poorly to comply with mine? No and no. It's your choice if you'd like to continue debate. I've made good effort to meet your requests even when I've had to repeat myself. Explain why I need to do this for you.

jackowens wrote:

And please, let parados speak for himself; I'm asking what the contradiction is in regard to our exchange.

I speak because your contradictions and logical errors are not unique to any one exchange here.

A
R
T

1 Reply

@jackowens,

Quote:

I've asked you twice, without a reply from you, if you agree to the numbered points that I suggest that we use as a flooring. I'd like to nail that down solidly. Obviously I agree to them or I wouldn't have proposed that we use them

Agreeing to them appears to have no connection with whether you follow them or not.

I don't disagree with them but if agreeing has no meaning then why are you so insistent that others agree? You laid out the rules. I don't think I have broken those rules. If you think I have, then point it out. But the real problem with your rules jack is we can't continue until we resolve your initial statement under the rules. Side tracking to the rules and demanding people agree to them isn't part of your rules. It's a side show and clearly an attempt to bypass your rules.

1 Reply

@parados,

Dear parados,

In reply to your post of 6/26/10:

Quote:

"I don't disagree with them..."

I'll interpret your not disagreeing with the numbered method/flooring I suggest that we use as agreeing to it as written with nothing changed or deleted. But I don't want to put words in your mouth. If my interpretation is wrong, stop me right there. Don't continue; clarify.

On the other hand if you are now prepared to continue using the method/flooring I've suggested:

Quote:

"...but if agreeing has no meaning then why are you so insistent that others agree?"

Now by implying that the method has no meaning for me, tell me, by number, which of the six points you think I've infringed and what the specific nature of that infringement is.

Regards,

Jack

1 Reply

@failures art,

Dear failures art,

In reply to your post of 6/26/10:

Quote:

"I've politely requested that you address these questions in one post so that I may continue my debate. I have, in your interest, put intentional effort not to add to the queue of questions so that you may catch up. You are not cooperating."

With your agreement that the first three of your questions have been answered, here are those remaining along with my answers:

4. If people (total strangers at that) disapproved of your marriage, can you still legally marry?

Total strangers can be divided into those who approve of one's (instead of "your") marriage, those who don't and those to whom it is immaterial.

In California what is considered a legal marriage was decided by what one might call total strangers in the voting booth. In that sense one cannot legally marry because of the disapproval of total strangers.

5. What nature of speech or context would not fall under the protection of free speech?

The classic is yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theater. But beyond that, it appears to depend on circumstances and authority. For instance, I'm sure you must have heard of university speech codes and hate speech. In those instances I guess it would be a case-by-case matter.

6. Why is it necessary to ban homosexuals from marrying to convey your disapproval?

In practical terms because fidelity would suffer. Philandering married homosexuals have no possibility of a pregnancy, as in the case of married heterosexuals. Think of John Edwards and Jesse Jackson.

7. We established that you can disapprove of idea/institution without banning it..."

I don't understand your question. When did I disapprove of an institution?

8. Quote: Jack and Jill get engaged. Neither Jack's parents or Jill's parents approve of the engagement. None of their friends approve of the engagement. Strangers on the street see them, and do not approve of the engagement. Does the disapproval of their relationship inhibit their legal ability to get married? No. If they get married will they have the same legal status (rights & privileges) as other married couples? Yes. Jack and Jill are sexual perverts. They like to **** in each others mouth. Daily. Now you disapprove of Bert and Ernie getting married. Why should your disapproval void Bert and Ernie's ability to legally marry while it doesn't void Jack and Jill's?

The way you're setting up that question is not very realisitic, but answering it in general terms, because Bert's and Ernie's marriage (assuming that they are of the same sex) is intitutionalizing a sexual perversion and Jack and Jill's isn't.

But let's be clear as to what's involved in one fundamental aspect of the matter: when I say that Bert and Ernie are involved in a sexual perversion I'm saying that not because it's a fact; I'm saying it because it's what I believe, a belief that may be false and, the truth/falsity of which, we're working on determining..

9. What make same sex marriage a sexual perversion? Specifically.

Specifically, homosexuality is the sexual perversion, marriage aside. 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 of the species should be driven to a live, postpubescent member of the same species and opposite sex.

Now, per your request, that completes the list of questions that you accused me of not answering. Please feel completely free to follow up on any of those answers that you think incomplete or that involve me in a fallacy or contradiction.

Let's return to that accusation of begging the question:

Quote:

"In short: the above is not begging the question by itself."

Then am I absolved of your accusation of being involved in a begging-the-question fallacy?

If I've missed anything you think important, catch me the next time around.

Regards,

Jack

2 Replies

@jackowens,

Thank You Jack for answering my questions. I am now able to resume.

jackowens wrote:

4. If people (total strangers at that) disapproved of your marriage, can you still legally marry?

Total strangers can be divided into those who approve of one's (instead of "your") marriage, those who don't and those to whom it is immaterial.

In California what is considered a legal marriage was decided by what one might call total strangers in the voting booth. In that sense one cannot legally marry because of the disapproval of total strangers.

You're moving the goal post. I asked if you (as in you) can legally get married if strangers disapprove of your marriage. In other words, can people show up to your marriage and prevent you from marrying because they do not approve of your relationship? The correct legal answer here is no. Your marriage, whether approved of or not retains the same legal rights and privileges.

What has happened in California is that same sex marriage has been removed from it's civil recognition. The basis for which as you clearly state: disapproval. The ethical conundrum here is that if the public can void a homosexual marriage's rights on the basis of disapproval, then how can they protect disapproved heterosexual relationships?

jackowens wrote:

5. What nature of speech or context would not fall under the protection of free speech?

The classic is yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theater. But beyond that, it appears to depend on circumstances and authority. For instance, I'm sure you must have heard of university speech codes and hate speech. In those instances I guess it would be a case-by-case matter.

I preempted the issue of yelling "fire." Speech that is not protected is very clearly defined in advance. Your notion that protected speech is case-by-case is not supported by any sort of actual legal precedent. So the only nature or context of speech which is not protected is speech that offers a real public threat. I.e. - The restriction on this right is understood because a compelling case is put forth that yelling "fire" in a theater or advocating the violent over-through of the government poses a legitimate threat.

jackowens wrote:

6. Why is it necessary to ban homosexuals from marrying to convey your disapproval?

In practical terms because fidelity would suffer. Philandering married homosexuals have no possibility of a pregnancy, as in the case of married heterosexuals. Think of John Edwards and Jesse Jackson.

I'm proud of you. You've now identified one of your burden's of evidence. You know understand that you must provide a compelling case that fidelity would suffer. You've presented two individuals with failed marriages. I'm eager to hear how homosexual marriage specifically caused their infidelity. Beyond that, since we are talking about a larger social issue, you'll need to demonstrate this on a national and global scale. So prove that states without gay marriage have lower rates of infidelity than states that do allow gay marriage. Show me the same with countries, and how specifically gay marriage negatively effects a straight couple's ability to stay faithful.

jackowens wrote:

7. We established that you can disapprove of idea/institution without banning it..."

I don't understand your question. When did I disapprove of an institution?

In this case, I'm referring to hate speech. You stated earlier that you did not need to make hate speech illegal to disapprove of it. In other words, letting hate speech be legal/protected was not show approval of hate speech.

jackowens wrote:

8. Quote: Jack and Jill get engaged. Neither Jack's parents or Jill's parents approve of the engagement. None of their friends approve of the engagement. Strangers on the street see them, and do not approve of the engagement. Does the disapproval of their relationship inhibit their legal ability to get married? No. If they get married will they have the same legal status (rights & privileges) as other married couples? Yes. Jack and Jill are sexual perverts. They like to **** in each others mouth. Daily. Now you disapprove of Bert and Ernie getting married. Why should your disapproval void Bert and Ernie's ability to legally marry while it doesn't void Jack and Jill's?

The way you're setting up that question is not very realisitic, but answering it in general terms, because Bert's and Ernie's marriage (assuming that they are of the same sex) is intitutionalizing a sexual perversion and Jack and Jill's isn't.

But let's be clear as to what's involved in one fundamental aspect of the matter: when I say that Bert and Ernie are involved in a sexual perversion I'm saying that not because it's a fact; I'm saying it because it's what I believe, a belief that may be false and, the truth/falsity of which, we're working on determining..

I'm aware this is what you believe. It doesn't really bother me that you believe it either. What bothers me, is that you believe that your belief is somehow a ethical foundation to obstruct other's ability to marry and receive rights and privileges.

You're more than welcome to believe what you want. I'm not the thought police. I'm simply helping you understand the limits of your entitlement.

jackowens wrote:

9. What make same sex marriage a sexual perversion? Specifically.

Specifically, homosexuality is the sexual perversion, marriage aside. 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 of the species should be driven to a live, postpubescent member of the same species and opposite sex.

The point here is not to aside marriage so you can talk about homosexuality. I asked you about same sex marriage, not homosexuality. Certainly you understand that homosexuality happens without a gay couple entering into marriage, so why ban the marriage? What does the marriage do specifically that is perverse?

If granting a civil contract to homosexuals is "approval," then is letting homosexuals vote or drive "approval" as well?

jackowens wrote:

Let's return to that accusation of begging the question:

Quote:
"In short: the above is not begging the question by itself."

Then am I absolved of your accusation of being involved in a begging-the-question fallacy?

No, because the referred statement was not the whole of the origin of your question begging. As I've stated, "by itself" it is not begging the question, but you've not presented it by itself, so you have two options:

1) Table the debate - Pointless since you yourself claim it is not fact but what you believe.

2) Proceed on with the debate on gay marriage without this premise.

A
R
T

2 Replies

@jackowens,

Quote:

Now by implying that the method has no meaning for me, tell me, by number, which of the six points you think I've infringed and what the specific nature of that infringement is.

I already pointed them out here
http://able2know.org/topic/152731-6#post-4188195

and here
http://able2know.org/topic/152731-6#post-4188883

But since we are on your point jack

Quote:

5. There will be no unilateral control of the discussion, something that, sooner or later, Gay Liberation ideologues seek. There will be no trying to dictate what points will or will not be discussed.

It appears you are trying to unilaterally control the discussion by diverting to your "points".

So, that would be 3 separate points jack that you appear to violate.

All I want to deal with is your original statement and the contradiction there. You deny marriage while claiming you would support it.

Since marriage requires a legal or social recognition the only way for gays to have something similar is for it to be recognized. You then say you don't want them to have anything that would be recognized because that would imply approval. The fact is that you don't want to support any gay marriage, don't you agree jack?

0 Replies

@jackowens,

Quote:

The way you're setting up that question is not very realisitic, but answering it in general terms, because Bert's and Ernie's marriage (assuming that they are of the same sex) is intitutionalizing a sexual perversion and Jack and Jill's isn't.

begging the question fallacy.

You have not established that homosexual sex is a "perversion" let alone established that marriage institutionalizes sex.

1 Reply

@failures art,

Dear failures art,

In reply to your post of 6/27/10:

Quote:

"The ethical conundrum here is that if the public can void a homosexual marriage's rights on the basis of disapproval, then how can they protect disapproved heterosexual relationships?"

To start, homosexuals do not have a right to marriage, an example of begging the question on your part. Regarding protected disapproved heterosexual relationships (not marriage?), I don't understand your question. Can you explain?

Quote:

"I'm eager to hear how homosexual marriage specifically caused their infidelity."

I'm not saying that homosexual marriage caused their infidelity. Please stop assigning beliefs to me.

Quote:

"Show me the same with countries, and how specifically gay marriage negatively effects a straight couple's ability to stay faithful."

An excellent example can be found in Andrew Sullivan's book Virtually Normal. He seems to be something of a spokesman for Gay Liberation ideology. In his book he argues that, "the openness of the contract" and the "greater understanding of the need for extramarital outlets between two men than between a man and a woman" result in an honesty, flexibility, and equality.

That makes sense to me. Doesn't it to you if an unwanted pregnancy is impossible? And the vice of promiscuity is replaced by the virtue of sharing.

If marriage as an institution incorporates that kind of thinking, with the consequent change in marriage vows, fidelity, which can often be difficult, would obviously be weakened and on its way to being a prejudice.

Quote:

"9. What make same sex marriage a sexual perversion? Specifically."

I'm not claiming that homosexual marriage is a sexual perversion. Your question is for some one who does.

To repeat, my belief is that homosexuality is a sexual perversion. If that belief is false, in what fallacy or contradiction does it involve me?

Quote:

"What does the marriage do specifically that is perverse?"

I'm not saying that homosexual marriage does something that is perverse.

Quote:

"If granting a civil contract to homosexuals is 'approval,' then is letting homosexuals vote or drive 'approval' as well?"

I'm not sure I understand that. If that is supposed to show that I'm involved in a fallacy or contradiction, lay it out.

(Jack:) "Then am I absolved of your accusation of being involved in a begging-the-question fallacy?"

Quote:

"No, because the referred statement was not the whole of the origin of your question begging."

That seems a bit jumbled. Begging the question occurs when the propounder assumes a proposition he asserts to be true when whether it is or not is the question at issue. Please give me that proposition --my proposition, not one you assign to me-- that represents "the whole of the origin of my question-begging".

Regards.

Jack

1 Reply

@parados,

Dear parados,

In reply to your two posts of 6/27/10:

Quote:

"I already pointed them out: You could explain why your opening statement wasn't contradictory since marriage requires recognition by society and yet you claimed gays could marry as long as it isn't recognized."

I fail to see the contradiction. There seems to be confusion between marriage as recognized in California and marriage as a private ceremony that does not constitute a recognized marriage. Let's call the first "marriageR" and the second 'marriageNR".

With that clarification, what, with a clear identification, am I affirming and denying.

"And here: (Jack:) '4. Errors are to be sought on both sides of the issue. Progress will consist in seeking, identifying, agreeing on and discarding them. They will not be left inconclusive to clog up the exchange.' That means we can't progress until we identify and agree on your statement or else you discard it."

I'm not sure I understand that. As far as I know the method has been identified and agreed on. Where does discarding come in regarding the method itself? If you've changed your mind and now disagree with the method, what changes are needed?

Confusing.

Quote:

"The fact is that you don't want to support any gay marriage, don't you agree jack?"

I support, in the sense of tolerate, "marriageNR". I wouldn't penalize or criminalize it. Regarding "marriageR", I go beyond toleration to approval.

"You have not established that homosexual sex is a 'perversion'..."

Specifically, homosexuality is the sexual perversion, marriage aside. 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.

What fallacy or contradiction does that involve me in?

Regards,

Jack

3 Replies

@jackowens,

jackowens wrote:

Quote:
"The ethical conundrum here is that if the public can void a homosexual marriage's rights on the basis of disapproval, then how can they protect disapproved heterosexual relationships?"

To start, homosexuals do not have a right to marriage, an example of begging the question on your part. Regarding protected disapproved heterosexual relationships (not marriage?), I don't understand your question. Can you explain?

Marriage rights Not Equal

right to marry. Syntax my dear boy. Marriage rights are things like the ability to have inheritance, hospital visitation, and child custody in the event of death.

Nobody has the "right to marry," not even heterosexuals. If you'd like to argue that people do have that right, I'd love to see by what criteria this right would not extend to homosexuals.

What a disapproved heterosexual relationship is should not have to be explained. It would be any relationship, I or anyone else disapproves of where the couple is a man and a woman. So whether I disapprove of them marrying for rational or irrational reasons, their ability to get married is unaffected.

E.g. - Jack and Jill are perverts because they like to **** in each other's mouth during sexual intercourse. They want to get married and I disapprove of their sexual perversion. My disapproval mean not a thing to their legal ability to marry.

jackowens wrote:

Quote:
"I'm eager to hear how homosexual marriage specifically caused their infidelity."

I'm not saying that homosexual marriage caused their infidelity. Please stop assigning beliefs to me.

You brought up Edwards, and Jackson and presented the link to infidelity. Are you withdrawing your statement?

jackowens wrote:

Quote:
"Show me the same with countries, and how specifically gay marriage negatively effects a straight couple's ability to stay faithful."

An excellent example can be found in Andrew Sullivan's book Virtually Normal. He seems to be something of a spokesman for Gay Liberation ideology. In his book he argues that, "the openness of the contract" and the "greater understanding of the need for extramarital outlets between two men than between a man and a woman" result in an honesty, flexibility, and equality.

Relevance to the issue? Gay couples aren't trying to get married so they can practice infidelity. If they want to practice infidelity, they can do it without being married (in fact with greater ease, and less potential legal repercussion) just like straight couples can and do.

jackowens wrote:

That makes sense to me. Doesn't it to you if an unwanted pregnancy is impossible? And the vice of promiscuity is replaced by the virtue of sharing.

This does not make sense to me. People aren't opting for a gay lifestyle as a means for birth control. Believe otherwise? Prove it.

Also, why would gay couples want to get married so they can have more partners? Further still, if they want to do that with other consenting partners, what is it to you? It seems you wish to police the bedrooms... only the gay bedrooms that is.

jackowens wrote:

If marriage as an institution incorporates that kind of thinking, with the consequent change in marriage vows, fidelity, which can often be difficult, would obviously be weakened and on its way to being a prejudice.

You just said above that Edwards' and Jackson's infidelity had nothing to do with homosexuals getting married. Now you're saying that if gay marriage is allowed, then the institution of marriage will incorporate a prejudice against fidelity. Please withdraw which statement you do not wish to defend.

jackowens wrote:

Quote:
"9. What make same sex marriage a sexual perversion? Specifically."

I'm not claiming that homosexual marriage is a sexual perversion. Your question is for some one who does.

Bravo. Good form.

So then you understand that homosexuals marrying does nothing that you object to. It is simply the matter of homosexuals existing. If they exist (they do), and marriage of gays is not a sexual perversion (you agree), then what does obstructing their marriage do?

jackowens wrote:

To repeat, my belief is that homosexuality is a sexual perversion. If that belief is false, in what fallacy or contradiction does it involve me?

I'm sure that you believe this. You believe homosexuality is sexual perversion because it's homosexuality. I don't need to convince you to not believe this.

I'm helping you understand the limits of your entitlement. Or as they say, you have the right to swing your fist wildly in the air, but your rights end at the tip of my nose.

jackowens wrote:

Quote:
"What does the marriage do specifically that is perverse?"

I'm not saying that homosexual marriage does something that is perverse.

Then gay people getting married is about as sexually perverted as painting a wall beige.

jackowens wrote:

Quote:
"If granting a civil contract to homosexuals is 'approval,' then is letting homosexuals vote or drive 'approval' as well?"

I'm not sure I understand that. If that is supposed to show that I'm involved in a fallacy or contradiction, lay it out.

Your problem is that you've identified your objection is to homosexuality, but wish to wager the issue over their ability to marry each other. You concede that them marrying is not in any way perverse, that your belief that they are sexually perverted is independent of the issue of marriage, but when offered other civil contracts to evaluate your claim that denying marriage is needed to show disapproval of homosexuality, you can't form how denying a drivers license or voting rights applies to the idea of disapproval.

jackowens wrote:

(Jack:) "Then am I absolved of your accusation of being involved in a begging-the-question fallacy?"

Quote:
"No, because the referred statement was not the whole of the origin of your question begging."

That seems a bit jumbled. Begging the question occurs when the propounder assumes a proposition he asserts to be true when whether it is or not is the question at issue. Please give me that proposition --my proposition, not one you assign to me-- that represents "the whole of the origin of my question-begging".

P1 - Homosexuality is sexual perversion
P2 - Homosexuals marrying is giving approval of homosexual behavior
A - Because we cannot allow the approval of sexual perversion, we must prohibit homosexuals from marrying.

Your question begging happens when you apply your unestablished premises 'P1' and 'P2' to your Assertion 'A'. Your premises be themselves are fine as opinions, but if you wish to use them as premise, don't expect it to logically float. It may be internally air tight to you, but when tested by examples of heterosexual sexual perversions, or other things that could be disapproved of (interracial, affluent/poor, or interreligious couples) it busts.

A
R
T

1 Reply

@jackowens,

You are changing the meaning of the word marriage.

Marriage is a legal and social contract which requires that it be recognized by society.
You argued you oppose anything that is recognized by society.
You claim you are all for gay marriage as long as society doesn't recognize it.

Do you see the problem with your logic?

0 Replies

@jackowens,

Quote:

Specifically, homosexuality is the sexual perversion, marriage aside. 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.

What fallacy or contradiction does that involve me in?

JoefromChicago has already pointed that out. You have provided no evidence other than your statement that homosexuality is a perversi0n.

1 Reply

@jackowens,

jackowens wrote:

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.

Hi Jack,

I'm curious where you get the above idea from.

1 Reply

@failures art,

Dear failures art,

In reply to your post of 6/27/10:

Quote:

"You brought up Edwards, and Jackson and presented the link to infidelity. Are you withdrawing your statement?"

No. Do you find it involving me in a fallacy or contradiction?

Quote:

"Gay couples aren't trying to get married so they can practice infidelity."

No, they are marrying to gain acceptance/equality, which is completely understandable.

Quote:

"This does not make sense to me. People aren't opting for a gay lifestyle as a means for birth control. Believe otherwise? Prove it."

If it doesn't make sense to you, let's drop it.

Quote:

"Also, why would gay couples want to get married so they can have more partners?"

They don't want to just get married; they want their marriage accepted.

Quote:

"So then you understand that homosexuals marrying does nothing that you object to."

I'll respond to that if you ask it as a question rather than a belief assigned to me.

(Jack:) "To repeat, my belief is that homosexuality is a sexual perversion. If that belief is false, in what fallacy or contradiction does it involve me?"

Quote:

"I'm sure that you believe this. You believe homosexuality is sexual perversion because it's homosexuality. I don't need to convince you to not believe this."

I'm not asking you to confirm my belief as my belief nor my sincerity in believing it; I'm asking you if you find any fallacies --aside from the begging-the-question one that I address below-- or contradictions in that belief as explained.

To start, that takes a "yes" or "no" answer.

Regarding your reformulation of in what a begging-the-question fallacy consists, you're going around in circles. There's nothing new in what you say, just a change in wording and presentation. It still depends on your apparent insistence that I'm putting forth my belief that homosexuality is a sexual perversion as an incontrovertible truth, which I deny.

Quote:

"P1 - Homosexuality is sexual perversion."

A proposition that I say may be true or false

Quote:

"P2 - Homosexuals marrying is giving approval of homosexual behavior."

If such marriages are institutionalized, yes.

Quote:

"A - Because we cannot allow the approval of sexual perversion, we must prohibit homosexuals from marrying."

No. The vote was that we must prevent the institutionalization of such marriages.

Quote:

"Your question begging happens when you apply your unestablished premises 'P1'..."

Then I won't apply my "unestablished premise to Assertion 'A'". I won't do it because P1 may be false.

Where does that leave your accusation of my being involved in a begging-the-question fallacy? It's starting to sound like you don't know what a begging-the-question fallacy is.

Regards,

Jack

1 Reply

@parados,

Dear parados,

In reply to your posts of 6/27/10:

Quote:

"You are changing the meaning of the word marriage.

Marriage is a legal and social contract which requires that it be recognized by society."

To be a "marriageR", yes.

Quote:

"You argued you oppose anything that is recognized by society."

No. Where in the world do you find me saying that?

Quote:

"You claim you are all for gay marriage as long as society doesn't recognize it."

To put it more precisely, I'm in favor of tolerance of homosexual marriages, but not in favor of recognizing, in the sense of institutionalizing, them.

"Do you see the problem with your logic?"

No, but I see the problem with yours.

(Jack:) "Specifically, homosexuality is the sexual perversion, marriage aside. 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. What fallacy or contradiction does that involve me in?"

"JoefromChicago has already pointed that out."

No he hasn't. Where?

Quote:

"You have provided no evidence other than your statement that homosexuality is a perversi0n."

I'm assuming that if a proposition, on analysis, is free of fallacies and contradictions it is reasonable to consider it a provisional truth.

Do you disagree?

Regards,

Jack

2 Replies

@ehBeth,

Dear ehBeth,

In reply to your post of 6/27/10:

jackowens wrote: 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.

Quote:

"I'm curious where you get the above idea from."

I can't give you a single source; it's just extracted from an accumulation of things I've learned over the years.

But what is at issue here is not where the idea came from but whether it makes sense --more specifically whether it incorporates a fallacy or contradiction. Your trying to categorize it as foolishness with no explanation is little short of prejudice and not very persuasive.

Regards,

Jack

1 Reply

@jackowens,

jackowens wrote:

Your trying to categorize it as foolishness

I didn't categorize it in any way.

I asked you where you got it from. You stated it as if it was a fact. I'm interested in your sources.

1 Reply

@jackowens,

Quote:

(Jack:) "To repeat, my belief is that homosexuality is a sexual perversion. If that belief is false, in what fallacy or contradiction does it involve me?"

So, it is your belief? You have no evidence to support it in other words.

Quote:

(Jack:) "Specifically, homosexuality is the sexual perversion, marriage aside. 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.

So, if merely directing the sexual drive in a way that doesn't reproduce is "perversion" then you would by that definition have to oppose marriage of women over 45-50 and marriage of those unable to reproduce if they know it before they marry. But you make exceptions which lead us to believe your only argument is you think homosexuality is perverse. This leads to what Joe pointed out is nothing more than ipse dixit. You change the meaning you gave for sexual perversion when we apply it to sex that clearly doesn't involve a reproductive drive. Masturbation in no way can lead to reproduction yet you declare it isn't sexual perversion. You don't even apply your own definitions let alone your own rules of debate.

Since homosexuality is a perversion is nothing more than ipse dixit that means any conclusion you make from your assumption are invalid.

Let me give you another example of your logic jack.

X believes anyone that thinks homosexuality is a perversion is an idiot.
J says that homosexuality is a perversion.
We can then conclude that J is an idiot, can we not? Or if not why not?

1 Reply

Gay Marriage & Conflict Resolution

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know