Gay Marriage & Conflict Resolution

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?

Yes they are. They're asking to have a sexual perversion institutionalized.

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.

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."

"If we don't know if it is a sexual perversion or not and you have never used it to reach a conclusions then what is this statement from you?"

"If we don't know if it is a sexual perversion or not..."

"...and you have never used it to reach a conclusions then what is this statement from you?"

That's a rule? Where can I find this rule?

"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?"

" 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?"

Dear parados,

Quote:

"If we don't know if it is a sexual perversion or not and you have never used it to reach a conclusions then what is this statement from you?"

Let me break that down.

My proposition, without the reasoning already given in support of it, is, "Homosexuality is a sexual perversion".

Quote:

"If we don't know if it is a sexual perversion or not..."

I admit that. Do you?

Quote:

"...and you have never used it to reach a conclusions then what is this statement from you?"

It's a proposition in support of which facts and reasoning must be given if I want to show it to be true.

Now from what has been written by you and failures art, what makes me guilty of being involved in a begging-the-question fallacy is that I'm trying to pass off as true a proposition (my belief) that is false. If I admit that the proposition (my belief) may be false and that to prove it true, facts and reasoning must given, the facts and reasoning are the points really at issue, whether what is given as facts are facts rather than fictions and whether the reasoning given is sound rather than flawed.

Can you accept that?

If you can, how am I begging the question?

This is how real-life questions are often begged, that is, by using loaded language to conceal the fact that an argument is circular.

(Jack:) "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."

Quote:

That's a rule? Where can I find this rule?

In the California legal code.

Quote:

"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?

Obviously a man who marries a 12-year-old and is married for 50 years

Quote:

"Which marriage better fits your argument that marriage is for the purpose of reproduction?"

No no. My argument isn't that marriage is for the purpose of reproduction; the reproductive system is. The simple occurrence of reproduction doesn't need marriage. Marriage is the cultural institution that gives recognition to the function/purpose of the reproductive system and the male/female union necessary for the realization of that function/purpose.

Quote:

" 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?"

Yes, but I believe that those benefits can be arranged under present laws or, to provide those benefits appropriately, the needed legislation can be enacted.

"If we don't know if it is a sexual perversion or not..."

"Yes, I admit that but you reached a conclusion based on it."

"Your reasoning is as follows

Homosexuality is a perversion

THEREFOR allowing homosexual marraige would institutionalize sexual perversion.

Your statement is a conclusion based on the unsupported allegation."

"This is how real-life questions are often begged, that is, by using loaded language to conceal the fact that an argument is circular."

If, after that examination, #1 apprears to be a truth, the truth of #2 is largely self-evident. If, on the other hand, that examination of #1 shows it to be a falsity, to withhold approval of the institutionalization of homosexuality in marriage on the basis of its being a sexual perversion is invalid.

Are we in agreement on that?

Yes they are. They're asking to have a sexual perversion institutionalized.

But I'm not getting to the THEREFORE. That comes later as explained above

They're asking to have a sexual perversion institutionalized

"Homophobia" is loaded, too, but I would not try to refute it on the basis of its being "loaded". "Loaded" is not one of our test-criteria for error. Do you agree to discard its use and stick with fallacies and contradictions per our original agreement?

"Really? Cite the code. I am interested in this law that you think claims marriage is for reproduction. I am willing to bet no such law exists."

I haven't said that marriage must be followed by reproduction if that's what you're implying.

(Jack:) "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."

I haven't said that marriage must be followed by reproduction if that's what you're implying.

"So you agree then that marriage has NOTHING to do with reproduction other than some historical idea of yours that you agree is no longer valid in describing marriage."

If you're talking in biological/animal terms you're quite right; marriage has nothing to do with reproduction. It's only when we get to the social level with the need for civilized order and the part the nuclear family plays in that order that we get into the value of marriage as a cultural institution.

One out of every two children in the United States will live in a single-parent family at some time before they reach age 18. According the United States Census Bureau, in 2002 about 20 million children lived in a household with only their mother or their father. This is more than one-fourth of all children in the United States.

"So, that makes your argument about 'reproduction' nothing but a red herring."

Again, we need something clearer than "red herring". Are you saying that I'm involved in a fallacy or contradiction?

"Didn't you say that recognizing them would be the same as approving of them."

Yes.

"You have just undermined your argument."

Once again, I don't mind your use of "undermined" but I find it imprecise and short of showing my argument to be fallacious or contradictory. What fallacy or contradiction am I involved in that you are attempting to point out with your use of the word "undermined"?

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.

"Your statement is clearly a conclusion based on 'Homosexuality is a sexual perversion'. You used something that wasn't factual to make a logical conclusion."

"In the discussion about recognition of marriage it would be a non sequitor."

"The value of marriage as a cultural institution is an 'appeal to tradition' fallacy."

"Why should I agree to discard something I never used?"

"By the way, you have never pointed out a fallacy on my or Joe's part.

"Why are you exempt from that?"

"Where can I find the rule that a reasonable basis for marriage is because it is only possible for male and females to reproduce?"

"I stated your statement was contradictory.

1. You think homosexuals should be allowed to marry."

"2. You say you don't want others to approve of their marriage."

"3. You say any recognition of a marriage by the government means approval."

"4. You agree that the preferred procedure for gays is to have their unions recognized."

"Your statement is contradictory. Since 2 of the 4 tenets that underpin your statement are contradictory and mutually exclusive your statement is as well. You can't allow gays to marry by their preferred method at the same time you prevent them from implementing their preferred method."

Joefromchicago simply lied. He agreed to follow the method I suggested and didn't.

I'm not appealing to tradition; I'm appealing to the foundation of tradition and asking you to address that foundation.

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

I'm not talking about your use of the term "homophobia", I'm talking about your use of the term "loaded".

Joefromchicago simply lied. He agreed to follow the method I suggested and didn't.

We have to go further for me to be able to nail down any fallacies or contradictions you're involved in. At present I believe you're involved in a contradiction regarding my involvement in a begging-the-question fallacy.

Quote:

"Where can I find the rule that a reasonable basis for marriage is because it is only possible for male and females to reproduce?"

Drop "The general rule is that," and vet the rest.

Yes, in whatever non-community-recognized ceremony that they prefer.

No. That use of the term "procedure" confuses a) the ceremony that the individual same-sex couple arranges as its individual preference with b) the "procedure" of having the marriage --and I mean "marriageNR"-- recognized/approved by the community changing it to a "marriageR".

When I say "their preferred method", I mean that they decide what kind of ceremony they prefer and where it will be held.

"When I give a source that shows loaded terms are used in fallacies and point out your use of a loaded term you now want to say I can't point it out?"

"Ah, so they can do whatever they like as long as you approve of it first?"

(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?

We never seem to get to the nature of Homo sapiens and what can be reasonably adduced from that nature.

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

"Because you are still employing the premise in your argument."