7
   

Gay Marriage & Conflict Resolution

 
 
joefromchicago
 
  3  
Reply Mon 28 Jun, 2010 02:23 pm
@failures art,
failures art wrote:
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.

You misunderstand Jack's argument. He's not saying that homosexual marriage causes heterosexuals to cheat on their spouses, he's saying that heterosexual cheating is OK because at least there's a chance that the cheating woman could get pregnant. That wouldn't be the case with homosexual cheaters, because they're perverts.
parados
 
  2  
Reply Mon 28 Jun, 2010 02:23 pm
@jackowens,
jackowens wrote:

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?
You oppose any gay marriage that is recognized by society do you not? "Anything" refers to a gay marriage or other sort of commitment ceremony.

Since marriage is by definition recognized by society you can't support "gay marriage" since it would not be marriage without recognition.

Quote:

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.
How can it be marriage if it isn't a social or legal contract recognized by society?

Quote:

"Do you see the problem with your logic?"

No, but I see the problem with yours.

You are arguing that you like eggs as long as they don't have yolks, egg whites or an egg shell. You support gay marriage as long as it is not the recognized as a social and legal contract. That means it isn't marriage.

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. 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?"
In the discussion about recognition of marriage it would be a non sequitor.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  2  
Reply Mon 28 Jun, 2010 02:26 pm
@joefromchicago,
Right joe.

So does that mean jack thinks homosexual marriage would be OK if both spouses cheat in a heterosexual fashion?
joefromchicago
 
  3  
Reply Mon 28 Jun, 2010 02:31 pm
@parados,
The cheating would be OK, but the marriage would still be wrong.
0 Replies
 
jackowens
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Jun, 2010 04:12 pm
@parados,
Dear parados,

In reply to your post of 6/28/10:

(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:
"So, it is your belief?"

Yes. Whether that belief is true or false is still to be determined.

Quote:
"You have no evidence to support it in other words."

You neglected to answer the question on that point in my previous post: "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?"

Quote:
"This leads to what Joe pointed out is nothing more than ipse dixit."

Apparently neither Joe nor you know what an ipse dixit is or don't know how to apply it. To clarify, it is an assertion made but not proved. That my belief is not proved is freely admitted and has been admitted several times including in this post. The hangup at this point is what you will accept as constituting acceptable proof, a question I tried to probe with the question you failed to answer, as pointed out above, and that you tried to supplant with questions of your own.

Please answer my question.

Regards,

Jack

parados
 
  2  
Reply Mon 28 Jun, 2010 09:00 pm
@jackowens,
Quote:
You neglected to answer the question on that point in my previous post: "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?"


Let me make a proposition -

"Jackowens is an idiot."

The above proposition has no fallacy and no contradiction in it as you appear to define them. Is the statement true simply because it contains no fallacy and no contradiction?

The only way for YOU to agree to your question is to admit that my proposition is true jack. I don't think simply because someone makes a proposition it is true.
failures art
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Jun, 2010 10:03 pm
@jackowens,
jackowens wrote:

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?

I find it rather confusing and irrelevant. How about YOU explain why you brought them up.

jackowens wrote:

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.

Marriage comes with rights and privilages. I think they want to get married for those, and your disapproval and my approval doesn't even enter the equation.

jackowens wrote:

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.

Again, you're bringing this stuff up, not me. If you don't plan to make sense of it, save both of our times.

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 what if they do? Why can't you let them legally marry and then continue to not approve?

jackowens wrote:

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.

You said there was nothing perverse about the marriage, just the homosexuality. The homosexuality exists regardless of the marriage. So the thing you're arguing against is a separate entity from the thing you object to. you just seem to project that marriage means that homosexuals will be accepted.

jackowens wrote:

(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.

Are there fallacies aside from the fallacies? No.

jackowens wrote:

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.

If it's not truth then why are you trying to use it in a factual debate? If it's just your opinion, it's noted. Move on.

jackowens wrote:

Quote:
"P1 - Homosexuality is sexual perversion."

A proposition that I say may be true or false

You say that because you feel you must. You don't actually believe that it could be false. You're not being honest.

You're free to prove me wrong. What burden of evidence would I need to show you to prove this is false? If you admit it could be false, you have to be able to define that. I'm very interested in knowing what criteria will define homosexuals as perverse but some how keep heterosexuals from being defined in perverse terms.

jackowens wrote:

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

If such marriages are institutionalized, yes.

This belief is in direct contradiction with your stated values regarding the freedom of speech. You admitted that you did not need to make unpopular or hate speech illegal to show disapproval or unacceptable. If such language and ideas are able to be legal institutions, then what are you so threatened by with same sex marriage.

E.g. -
Allowing racist speech to be legal in no way is state sponsored acceptance of racism. An individual does not have to personally accept or approve of hate speech just because it is legal.

Abbra ka dabbra -
Allowing same sex marriage to be legal in no way is state sponsored acceptance of homosexuality. An individual does not have to personally accept or approve of gay marriage just because it is legal.

jackowens wrote:

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.

Is that what you believe?

The vote was that bigotry must be institutionalized to assert superiority.

Both your and my what-the-vote-was-about are correct depending on who you talk to.

Talk about what the vote did, not what it was about. What it did was define marriage in CA to a single man and single woman. As I understand, there is still some disagreement on if it voids same sex marriages prior to the vote.

jackowens wrote:

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.

It took you a very long time to get to this point.

jackowens wrote:

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.

50% there. If you wish to table your P2 to it's own debate to keep it, let's go there next. Otherwise, state your claim again so we are reset and I know where you stand.

As I have it right now...

We cannot let same sex marriages be legal because it would institutionalize same sex marriages.

Perhaps you can state it better than I?

A
R
T
jackowens
 
  0  
Reply Tue 29 Jun, 2010 01:28 am
@parados,
Dear parados,

In reply to your post of 6/28/10:

Quote:
"Let me make a proposition. "Jackowens is an idiot.
"The above proposition has no fallacy and no contradiction in it as you appear to define them. Is the statement true simply because it contains no fallacy and no contradiction?"


No.

But talking of my contention as a series of propositions, are we in agreement that, to start and whatever other errors that can be detected in it, I am not involved in any fallacies or contradictions in giving it as a possible truth?

That takes a "yes" or "no" answer.

Regards,

Jack
jackowens
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 29 Jun, 2010 02:15 am
@failures art,
Dear failures art,

In response to your post of 6/28/10:

(Jack:) "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."

Quote:
"Are there fallacies aside from the fallacies? No."

That's simply obfuscatory and makes no sense at all.

You've already identified the fallacy of begging the question which you're accusing me of. Is my contention, as given, free of any other fallacies or contradictions?

That takes a "yes" or "no" answer.

If the answer is "no", please identify the fallacies or contradictions.

(failures art:) "P1 - Homosexuality is sexual perversion."

(Jack:) "A proposition that I say may be true or false."
Quote:


"You say that because you feel you must."

I don't know what that means.

Quote:
"You don't actually believe that it could be false."

That's true, but I could be (am?) mistaken. Right? And you have our agreed-on test-criteria to show it to be mistaken. Right? Please do it.

If I can say that and respond to any further of your questions on the point, why am I guilty of a begging the question fallacy?

If I've missed any key points in your post, catch me the next time around.

Regards,

Jack

jackowens
 
  0  
Reply Tue 29 Jun, 2010 04:39 am
@ehBeth,
Dear ehBeth,

In reply to your post of 6/28/10:

jackowens wrote: Your trying to categorize it as foolishness.

Quote:
"I didn't categorize it in any way."

What did you do in your post of 6/24/10?

Quote:
"My vote would be to allow you to post foolishness, which you already can and do, by means of your preferred procedure as long as others aren't obliged to approve of such foolishness."


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

I can't go any further than my answer to that question given in my post to you of 6/28/10. But what's the difference, where it came from? What has that to do with its truth or falsity?

Regards,

Jack
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  2  
Reply Tue 29 Jun, 2010 07:01 am
@jackowens,
Quote:

But talking of my contention as a series of propositions, are we in agreement that, to start and whatever other errors that can be detected in it, I am not involved in any fallacies or contradictions in giving it as a possible truth?

Your series of propositions does contain fallacies.

You use the appeal to tradition fallacy
You use the begging the question fallacy
You use the relativist fallacy.

Quote:
I am not involved in any fallacies or contradictions in giving it as a possible truth?
I would call it a relativist fallacy. You believe something and want to pass it off as truth. Your defense of your belief moves you even further into a relativist fallacy.
jackowens
 
  0  
Reply Tue 29 Jun, 2010 02:24 pm
@parados,
Dear parados,

In reply to your post of 6/29/10:

Quote:
"Your series of propositions does contain fallacies.

You use the appeal to tradition fallacy
You use the begging the question fallacy
You use the relativist fallacy."

Let's take them one at a time, starting with the begging-the-question fallacy since that seems to be a hangup with failures art, too.

The essence of the begging-the-question fallacy is that the one guilty of it is adamantly trying to use a contention as an irrefragable truth that can be validly used as a premise to reach a conclusion.

The ploy here, as failures art is using it, is a variant of the ad hominem fallacy: since the accused (Jack) insists that his proposition is an absolute truth, he is unreasonable and rational communication with him is impossible. If that ploy is successful, what is dodged is the need to deal with refuting the proposition itself on the basis of any flaws of fact or reasoning it contains.

With that pointed out, instead of attacking me as insisting on the truth of the series of propositions making up my basic contention, point out flaws in that series itself. And with my saying that, that I want to have those supposed flaws laid out, will you admit that your accusation of my being guilty of being involved in a begging-the-question fallacy is premature? But please don't misunderstand: I can be shown to be guilty of that fallacy if I refuse to give genuine consideration to what you consider to be flaws, but that is still to be seen.

Make sense?

"You believe something and want to pass it off as truth."

That's correct but, as you state it is an example of what I point out above: it serves to impugns me; it's not a rebuttal of what I'm trying to "pass off".

Regards,

Jack

parados
 
  3  
Reply Tue 29 Jun, 2010 03:19 pm
@jackowens,
Quote:

That's correct but, as you state it is an example of what I point out above: it serves to impugns me; it's not a rebuttal of what I'm trying to "pass off".

It doesn't impugn you if that is what you are doing. And it IS what you are doing. The relativist fallacy by it's nature points out that the person making the claim is passing it off as truth. If you want to argue that impugns you then show why it isn't a relativist fallacy as you use it. There is no ad hominem in my argument. It is your ACTION that is called into question, not you personally which is required for an ad hominem.

Quote:

The essence of the begging-the-question fallacy is that the one guilty of it is adamantly trying to use a contention as an irrefragable truth that can be validly used as a premise to reach a conclusion.
(That statement doesn't even make sense in describing "begging the question.) Ah... but if I show YOU are begging the question would that impugn you and be an ad hominem?

The flaw in fact is in your arguments:
1) jack claims homosexuality is a perversion while heterosexual variations which do not further reproduction are not perversions. (There is no fact to base that on. It is merely your belief. Using your definition rape would not be a perversion since it can result in reproduction.)

2) You then argue that allowing gay marriage would institutionalize perversion. (There is no evidence that marriage institutionalizes sex since sex is NOT the reason for marriage as a social contract. It occurs outside marriage quite often. The joke goes it happens less after marriage.) Tell us why recognizing marriage institutionalizes sex.
jackowens
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jun, 2010 10:03 pm
@parados,
Dear parados,

In reply to your post of 6/29/10:

(Jack:) "The essence of the begging-the-question fallacy is that the one guilty of it is adamantly trying to use a contention as an irrefragable truth that can be validly used as a premise to reach a conclusion."

Quote:
"(That statement doesn't even make sense in describing "begging the question.)"

That's a start, but too brief to be very convincing. Please describe a begging-the-qustion fallacy, pointing out the error that I made in describing it.

Regards,

Jack
parados
 
  3  
Reply Wed 30 Jun, 2010 07:01 am
@jackowens,
Please deal with the flaws in your arguments I pointed out specifically.

Do you not accept your rules? As per YOUR rules we can't move on until we deal with where I gave specifics.

But we haven't even eliminated the contradictions in your first post jack because you sidetracked the conversation again. Isn't that a rule about someone controlling the direction? Ah, yes, that's rule 5 which is preceded by rule 4 which states we can't move on until we clear up a contradiction.

Let me ask you a question about your first post which I pointed out was contradictory. If marriage was designed because of reproduction how can you say gays can marry at the same time you argue they can't reproduce? Aren't you equivocating by changing the meaning of the word 'marry' in your first post?
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  3  
Reply Wed 30 Jun, 2010 07:15 am
@jackowens,
Quote:
Ah... but if I show YOU are begging the question would that impugn you and be an ad hominem?

By the rules, aren't you supposed to answer my questions?

Ah well.... I didn't really expect you would follow the rules so I'm not disappointed.


Quote:
Please describe a begging-the-qustion fallacy, pointing out the error that I made in describing it.

From wiki
Quote:
Begging the question (or petitio principii, "assuming the initial point") is a logical fallacy in which the proposition to be proved is assumed implicitly or explicitly in the premise.



(Jack:) "The essence of the begging-the-question fallacy is that the one guilty of it is adamantly (there is nothing adamant required or even implied in begging the question. It only needs to be done once.) trying to use a contention as an irrefragable (Again, nothing irrefragable is required) truth that can be validly used as a premise to reach a conclusion." (You completely missed the part where what you are trying to prove is assumed in the premise.)

Which does raise the question of why your definition of marriage is based solely on the human ability to reproduce. That would appear to be begging the question of your conclusion that gay marriage is a perversion because gays can't reproduce. But we still haven't dealt with the equivocation in your use of "marry" in your first post. So, let's not sidetrack to begging the question quite yet.

Does marriage require that people be able to reproduce to marry?
jackowens
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Jun, 2010 04:28 pm
@parados,
Dear parados,

In reply to your posts of 6/30/10:

Quote:
"Do you not accept your rules?"

Of course I accept them.

Quote:
"Let me ask you a question about your first post which I pointed out was contradictory. If marriage was designed because of reproduction how can you say gays can marry at the same time you argue they can't reproduce?"

Your're ignoring the distinction I pointed out in my post to you of 6/27/10: homosexuals who marry per their privately arranged ceremonies consider themselves married although those marriages are not recognized as such by the community. I designated those marriages as "marriageNR" to distinguish them from those marriages recognized by the community, which I designated "marriageR".

Homosexuals are not forbidden to go through ceremonies that result in "marriageNR" and they can consider themselves married, but "marriageNR" are not the equivalent of "marriageR" and Gay Liberation ideologues have no trouble recognizing that difference.

What kind of problem do you have in recognizing that distinction? And, above all, where does the contradiction you claim to see come in?

Quote:
"Ah... but if I show YOU are begging the question would that impugn you and be an ad hominem?"

No no; of course not.

Quote:
"By the rules, aren't you supposed to answer my questions?"

Yes, I am. And if I fail to do it the first time around, call me on it as now.

Quote:
"Ah well.... I didn't really expect you would follow the rules so I'm not disappointed."

Have I satisfied the rules with the answers in this post?

Quote:
"Begging the question (or petitio principii, "assuming the initial point") is a logical fallacy in which the proposition to be proved is assumed implicitly or explicitly in the premise."

That sounds about right to me. The only thing to be clarified is that the proposition to be proved is used as a valid premise/truth and as a basis for proving a conclusion.

When I say that homosexuality is a sexual perversion, I'm not using that proposition as a valid premise/truth to arrive at a conclusion. That comes later if, after close examination, it is agreed to be a truth. At this point, however, I'm stopping short of that, as I pointed out to failures art, and am asking if, as a simple proposition, that proposition is true or false using the test-criteria for identifying errors we agreed on.

Why would that constitute a begging-the-question fallacy?

Quote:
"Which does raise the question of why your definition of marriage is based solely on the human ability to reproduce."

It doesn't

My definition of "marriageR" is based on the fact that Homo sapiens' reproductive system is a sexual one, and being such, if each individual member of the species is driven to anything other than a live, postpubescent member of the same species and opposite sex the system becomes non-functional and the drive misdirected.

If the system's becoming non-functional is of no importance to the individual, that's an individual matter and there is no obstacle to his going through a ceremony resulting in "marriageNR".

But he has no right to force that value (non-importance) on the community forcing it to grant a "marriageR".

Quote:
"Does marriage require that people be able to reproduce to marry?"

No. And trying to monitor the consequences of such a requirement in the case of heterosexual couples would not be practical.

The general rule is that, since it is only possible to reproduce by means of the union of a male and female, that specific union is a reasonable basis for the cultural institution of marriage.

Regards,

Jack


parados
 
  2  
Reply Thu 1 Jul, 2010 06:47 am
@jackowens,
Quote:
Your're ignoring the distinction I pointed out in my post to you of 6/27/10: homosexuals who marry per their privately arranged ceremonies consider themselves married although those marriages are not recognized as such by the community. I designated those marriages as "marriageNR" to distinguish them from those marriages recognized by the community, which I designated "marriageR".


So, can we both agree that you are equivocating? You are using different meanings of the term "marriage" in the same argument.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Jul, 2010 06:56 am
@jackowens,
Quote:
What kind of problem do you have in recognizing that distinction? And, above all, where does the contradiction you claim to see come in?

The problem is your equivocation. On one hand you want to argue heterosexual marriage which has the following definition from Mirriam Webster
Quote:
the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law


On the other hand you want to argue that the method gays prefer to marry has no consensual or contractual relationship recognized by the law. But in fact one of the major reasons people advocate gay marriage is to have it recognized by the law. Do you agree one of the major arguments for gay marriage is to have it recognized for the purposes of spousal benefits under the law? If not, present your evidence that it isn't a desire by those proposing gay marriage.

So, let's agree on a definition of marriage. There is no marriageNR and marriageR since marriageNR goes against the definition of marriage when it isn't recognized by law. Your use of the two is nothing but a logical fallacy. There is marriage and there is an unrecognized civil ceremony. Nothing else.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  2  
Reply Thu 1 Jul, 2010 07:03 am
@jackowens,
Quote:

My definition of "marriageR" is based on the fact that Homo sapiens' reproductive system is a sexual one, and being such, if each individual member of the species is driven to anything other than a live, postpubescent member of the same species and opposite sex the system becomes non-functional and the drive misdirected.

But you see this argument of yours isn't logical.
If the drive is to reproduce then an attraction to a post menopausal woman would be misdirected. There can be no other argument unless you want to equivocate on the meaning of "reproduce".

Let's assume for a moment that a women's ability to reproduce is from the ages of 13 to 50.
Which marriage is more likely to produce an offspring?
A man that marries a 12 year old and is married for 50 years
or a man that marries a 50 year old and is married for 50 years?
Which marriage better fits your argument that marriage is for the purpose of reproduction?
 

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 09/17/2021 at 09:55:58