TheLeviathan

If that happens, I'll be right by your side in the argument. That's the beauty of reason, it doesn't have to bend to whims or convenience. It resists them both in fact.

Well...it's not. We can't compare what we don't have information on. But since most children adopted and raised in gay households would have poor parenting (here is where your stats do apply), it's a worthy gamble. Worst case: these kids continue to have no parent and change to having two bad parents. Best case: LOTS of kids have good parents. Gamble = worth it.

That argument has dubious premises. Your definition is built on these premises. So, when I attack your premises, you don't get to cite the definition. You've yet to engage on any of the attempts I've made to undermine your premises. Such as the following litany of errors: 1. Men and women don't need to bond to procreate. Hell, at this point they don't even have to be in the same country. A sperm bank and a few procedures and you're good to go. No bonding necessary. 3. You've stated this argument has existed since "time immemorial" and yet, male bonding in the child rearing process is a recent development. They didn't even train their children in future trades for many centuries before now much less parent. And this is saying nothing for your dubious notions of the definition being static and unchanging and your insistence on only using Western Culture. (Which, not incidentally, has not existed for anywhere close to 4000 years) 4. Why not have two men parent rather than a man/woman? 5. Most women were sold off the second they "flowered" - transformations of adolescents is probably more rare then male bonding. We sold off women at 13, so how that part of your definition has existed since "time immemorial" is more than a bit dubious. 6. A polygamous relationship accomplishes all of these things. One could argue with reproductive rates it causes far more survival odds. Gay marriage offers all of these things save the "birth" aspect. Especially since the rejection of premise 1 is very much true. And that's not even including your laughable claim that marriage law dictates obligations to progeny! Now, provided you don't go back to appealing to any "principle" of the definition - we have no circularity! Huzzah....discussion of premises! This is so much easier when you A) actually lay them out and stop appealing to your own definition when your premise crumbles.

Correct, but I don't rule out the possibility that they are so god-awful that no parents would be better. I just find it extremely low.

I can agree to the second part. I don't think you can have social science on this matter without first taking the step to gay marriage. But yes, there is a degree of risk they'll be worse parents than single or no-parent households. I just don't think that risk is particularly high. If they are worse than a hetero parent household, that would make for a difficult future discussion for me in continuing to advocate SSM. But again, I think that risk is extremely low. To answer your very interesting second question, for me it would depends on which of the two ends they are closer to. If it's statistically in the middle, I'd find that acceptable because many kids who would be in the homosexual household would have had only a single parent or less.

You're correct, you aren't doing it explicitly. You're just wrapping it in jargon. Now, maybe you lost your own circularity in the jargon, many brilliant minds have done that. I'm just hoping now that it's out there, you please stop doing it. So when I addressed the premises, why did you immediately change the subject back to your definition? Again, I was ready four pages ago. The strength or weakness of your argument rests on premises yet you did everything you could for several posts to avoid that discussion. For instance, I don't deny that in the future we find out that gay marriage/gay parenting is very harmful to children. That is a possibility. In which case I would promptly oppose gay marriage. But we have no relevant data to suggest this is true. Not by inference or anything else. There simply is no data to compare. All we have to compare to right now is single or no-parent situations. The far stronger inference is that a two parent household (regardless of gender) is likely stronger than a one or no-parent situation. So I defer to the real benefit now of that being the likely case, but I don't deny it potentially turning out to be false down the line. And while you have tried the "woe is me" card a few times, no one has criticized you as a bigot. You're being criticized for fallacious arguments and a tendency to resist defending your premises. I've done so in a multitude of civil ways - any snark or biting comments are out of frustration for your unwillingness to engage them in favor of circular arguments, fallacies, or most recently - irrelevant data or by resisting posting your own thoughts and leaving nothing but a rambling mess to speak for you.

Yes, irrelevant evidence to the conversation leaves me wanting more relevant evidence. Guilty as charged. Got any of that relevant stuff buried somewhere?

Oh...the inference that two people is better than none or one? Well yeah. As for comparisons to two adults that are both women or men, no such inference can be made. I honestly don't believe the data exists to even compare man/woman parenting vs. man/man or woman/woman. Yet I've been recently told such empirical evidence exists. Please, quit holding out.

Well, yeah. Baseball is swell, but that's not my point. The point was to show I can form a similar argument and then argue that the "principle" of the definition was accurate. My argument has as much "principle" to the definition as yours does. Your premises are more believable, but nonetheless dubious. So you have dubious premises - that's where the discussion is. This "principle" conversation is circular ridiculousness - can it be done now? When did I say it predates religion? It predates males having a strong parental role and it damn sure predates developing teenagers into sexual adults. You forgot that premise apparently? Just as a very basic problem, western civilization hasn't even existed for anything close to 4000 years. We can just start there and the problems only get worse. As I said - dubious. The "gotcha" is that you continue to use that definition and appeal to it even though your premises are very dubious that the definition rests on. So you keep resting on the definition to prove the definition. (circularity for the win!!!!!) I'll repeat it again - your argument of the "principle" of your definition is only good insofar the premises are. So, if you're ready to get back to where I was 4 pages ago before you detoured us - your premises are dubious. Also - still waiting on that empirical evidence. I'd honestly like to see it. If you have the smoking gun of homosexual vs. heterosexual parenting success, don't keep the world waiting man!

This is, of course, my fault. In the efforts to expedite things I hoped you'd see the forest for the trees. After letting Alan Keyes speak for you for three pages, I should've known better. 1. Fans only enjoy themselves at a true sport defined as that which challenges athletes. 2. Athletes are only challenged using a wooden or metal stick to hit a round ball 3. Athletes are only challenged to score more points (within the context of the game) than their opponent 4. Athletes are only challenged when they must do running, throwing, swinging, jumping, diving, sliding, jogging, trotting, and scooping during play of the game 5. Athletes are only challenged if they may be hit by the object played with at speeds of 90 mph or more 6. Athletes are only challenged if they have less than 9 teammates actively playing with them. 7. Baseball is the only sport that meets all of conditions 2-6 and therefore is the only sport qualified to be a "true sport". Therefore fans only enjoy themselves watching baseball. Now, of course these premises can be challenged. But I've been challenging your premises for four pages and you keep running behind the "principle" of your definition. Which is circular. Shall I quote you earlier about your unwillingness to accept the premises of your argument could be challenged? (This was, of course, while Alan Keyes was still doing your talking for you and no such premises had been listed in particular. But I look back now and was pretty damn close!) I'm still waiting to hear how some of those premises are rectified with your earlier claims about the definition's consistency since pre-recordded time. And, of course, that empirical evidence you claimed.

You mean like I did earlier when I called your premises dubious and you hid behind the definition you claim had been unchanged since before the dawn of time? We've already been there! You were the one that decided that wasn't a fair place to play. Now you want back? I called out your notion about male bonding with children and with transforming young adults sexually. Both of which you didn't respond to. So, this is already happening, you just only choose to engage certain issues and keep going back to the same refrains to duck ones where you get caught with your hand in the cookie jar.

I'll help you with an example. Your purpose: to keep marriage to "traditional" only My purpose: (in honor of the site) To qualify baseball as the only "true sport" 1. In order for fans to enjoy themselves most completely they must follow a "true" sport. A true sport being only that which fosters the complete challenging of the athletes who participate by having them challenged in the following ways: 2. Challenged by using a wooden or metal stick to hit a round ball 3. Challenged to score more points (within the context of the game) than their opponent 4. Include running, throwing, swinging, jumping, diving, sliding, jogging, trotting, scooping 5. Challenged in that they may be hit by the object played with at speeds of 90 mph or more 6. Must be played with less than 10 players on either team, on the field, at any given time to maximize athlete importance. 7. Baseball is the only sport that meets all of conditions 2-6 and therefore is the only "true sport" by which fans enjoy themselves most completely. Now you perhaps may highlight some small part of this and say "nuh uh...this sports does too!" In which case I'd just amend my argument to wedge that one out too. When you get to nitpick your premises and hide them in circularity, it's easy to make any argument SEEM necessary and "principled" - but it's really just a mess of convenient BS you've strung together in fancy language to mask the flaws.

But they only meet that "principle" because you have so defined it. We come back to you hiding behind a definition to justify your definition. It's why I've skipped to the premises. You can't say marriage is only for heterosexuals and then nit-pick hetero-sexual specific qualities to inform you definition and say it's air-tight. That's convenient and disingenuous. As an example to the contrary, I have a very broad definition and it opens up the possibility of many kinds of marriages I'm not nearly as comfortable with. It's the price of not being convenient. Your conditions are so narrowly selected as to present the illusion that your conclusion is necessarily valid. It's not. I've defended my premises. My premises are very simple and pretty easily defended. Let's recap a few things you've thrown at the wall here and are abandoning: 1. Marriage laws enforce care of progeny -utterly and completely false. 2. Marriage (in principle) has been the same since before recorded time (if it's the same definition you just gave, I'd hope even you'd admit how ridiculous that claim was) Are you really contending that your principled definition1-5 has existed throughout all recorded time as you claimed earlier? I know that lacking one parent can hurt a child. But court cases have been wrangling with the two hetero vs. two homo parents for a decade. The studies are not in agreement and certainly show no consensus. Single parent studies are pretty irrelevant to this. As for your last point. I'm not sure if two women couldn't have taught me the same things, I haven't had that experience. Nor, historically has anyone else. To call it inferior presupposes the experience sufficient enough to prove that. I don't believe enough experiences exist to even form an opinion one way or the other. You claimed there was empirical fact to this point. I'm just asking you to put your money where your mouth is.

Here is where you breakdown. If you were to hold to your standards (and maybe you believe this, if so, fine) then only traditional marriages that meet all 1-5 would be allowed and divorces would be illegal. You dismiss homosexual marriages because "some or all" of the premises cannot be met. And yet, this is the case for many heterosexual marriages as well. If you can play fast and loose with how much of 1-5 is required for hetrosexual marriage, why not homosexual marriages as well? You are selectively picking the premises that matter to you to construct your definition. I can very much take issue with how "required" they are. Male bonding with children is a very new concept. (Like, within the last 200 years) Ditto the "transformation" into sexually responsible adults. In the past - women were just married off as soon as they had their first period. There was no such transformation. You've conveniently selected your premises and claim it's about the "principle" of your argument I deny your premises and history is pretty heavily on my side. Both messages are unhealthy, and empirically false. Most empirical studies have found little difference either way. But, since you claim you have empirical evidence - I'd like to see it.

At the end of the day, you are choosing not to see them. There are lots of things different between gay rights and civil rights, but one thing that is the same is that those opposed refused to see reason no matter how apparent it is. At the end of the day, you have a deeply held belief that you don't want to have changed and aren't interested in hearing anything to the contrary. That's fine, but don't pretend it's the merit of the arguments that's the problem. I would agree that preserving order is the key, that's at root in my beliefs about SSM in fact. I would also agree that some moral values are unchanging. I would not, however, place marriage even close to that category.

Apples and oranges. And you know it, that's a pretty disengenuous argument Psuedo.

Right, that's not a valid reason which means we have to talk about the actual reasons. I would never suggest traditions are wrong insofar as they are traditions, but they aren't right for tht reason either. I prefer to evaluate the reasons, not its longevity. As for past rmorality I do think things change - laws certainly. I even think that thirty years go SSM may not have fit because there was significantly less interest in having stable relationships. Of course, religious persecution plays a factor there as well, so it gets tricky. The situation now? Not tricky in my eyes.

I think (and I can only speculate until it's actually stated) this is what our discussion is here. UR has chosen (and I use that word quite specifically) to think marriage is constituted by one definition. I choose another. At that point we have to talk about whose perspective has more merit as a reasonable, fair, and simple definition. Definitions crafted specifically to enable one's argument are not reasonable or fair. Their simplicity is out of convenience to achieve their end. Hence the circularity.

Yeah, last I checked having a premise and a conclusion match is circular.

So now I clarify for a third time and the best I've gotten from you is a grainy Alan Keyes video. At best, this is bad form. At worst, trolling. I'll ask again - could you please just clarify YOUR position. It does make it a bit easier to have a discussion. When I talk about the "what" of marriage, you turn it to "why" and when we talk about the "why" of marriage, you talk about the "what". Here, I'll lead by example and yet again (ACTUALLY) share my opinion. Marriage is a social contract that a society grants to members to facilitate the raising of children and the partnering of economics for stability. It comes with obligations and privileges pursuant to that. See. Not so hard. Now you try. No Alan Keyes videos please. I have interpreted you in the past as saying you believe the definition of marriage is inherently about procreation and have offered up many counter examples. The truth is, you have defined the definition in such a way that makes it "in principle" about procreation and the only proof you have for that is your own definition. That is circular. "Marriage" is a legal construct and a term that has been denoted and used in many ways in many cultures. To use it in the same way as "the nature of fish is to have gills" is just asinine.

Yes, appeal to tradition is a basic fallacy. Google will prove this to you if nothing else. "Because something has always happened" is not reason/logic. You can value that if you want, but then you have divorced yourself from a discussion of reason. I never said I appeal to my heart - I appeal to reason.

Certainly many Christians make strong arguments against procreation as the reason why. I had a few I was going to post, but figured my sammich line was way better. To your point, I agree there are better reasons than procreation. The problem with your position is it violates a very basic fallacy of appeal to tradition. So Ultima's position (whatever it may be) is at least aware enough to not venture there. It's just another dubious basis for a belief, how much more dubious than Ultima's sort of depends on what his actually is.

You know what, maybe I missed it. Maybe it's my bad. Can anyone else explain to me what Ultima Ratio's position is? Perhaps I missed the "several times". I'd appreciate the help.

1. No, you first posted something unclear (at best) and a jargon-filled Alan Keyes video. So, no, still waiting. Clarity on your part would be helpful. You continue to imply there is a settled, universally agreed purpose for marriage, but refuse to make that clear and bristle when that claim is placed on you. I don't want to misrepresent you, but you refuse to clarify. 2. I haven't said anything about love other than asking for clarification about your confused question and making a snarky comment. 3. I already explained my conditions for marriage in response to you. Complete with checks.

You implied your premise that marriage was for procreation was the start of your deductive argument. If I took taht implication wrong...by all means: state your argument clearly. Not some ranting nonsense from Alan Keyes. Let's go back to Brock's question: What, exactly, do you believe? Then, if you'd like, I'll gladly answer this. I don't see a purpose in it if you're going to have a veiled argument you only share snippets of or let someone else talk for you.