Ultima Ratio

Levi said: "I don't think you can have social science on this matter without first taking the step to gay marriage." So we ought to experiment with marriage and childrearing that we can study it? "We've got to pass the bill in order to find out what's in it." - N. Pelosi Couldn't resist.

1. In order for a culture survive and thrive, it must foster (A) - the bonding between men and women. 2. A - the birth and rearing of children 3. A - the bonding between men and children 4. A - a healthy masculine identity 5. A - the transformation of adolescents into sexually responsible adults. 6. The institution of (traditional) marriage is the only kind of relationship that can promote all 1-5. 7. Therefore, society has an interest in promoting, encouraging and incentivizing male and female to not only procreate, but to marry and remain married to promote all 1-5, which are necessary to a culture's survival and well-being. 8. Therefore, society has an interest in encouraging (traditional) marriage. 9. Homosexual relationships cannot accomplish all of 1-5 10. Therefore, society has no compelling interest to promote, encourage and incentivize homosexual unions. For the last time, point out the circularity or stop.

Marriage is between and man and woman, therefore marriage is between a man and woman. You keep saying that I'm doing this, but clearing I haven't I have no idea what this means so surely it adds to the confusion. If you are saying that the reason I support leaving marriage alone as one man one women is because of the reasons I've given (the premises), then yes. That's generally how arguments work. Forget the word "principle" if it's so troublesome. I have nothing left to add. Clearly no minds have changed and you only care about ancillary minutiae at this point. You either accept my argument or you don't. I could give plenty others, but why waste my time - and yours. I just wanted to let those who read but don't post (because of our conservative nature), that we are out here. We are not bigots or homophobes and anyone who says so deserves to be challenged and ridiculed.

Since Homosexual marriage is very new, and adoptions to homosexuals even newer, there is not a great deal of research yet. What is plentiful is the research on the importance of having a mother and a father. So by inference....

Eric Holder will fall before Obama, and only then if the incompetent republican leadership can put together an independent special prosecutor to get to the bottom of all these scandals.

A majority of the country doesn't even know about it, because the MSM refused to cover it, now they are playing catch up. So, I care at least. Please stop the name calling and see your very own comment rules on this site.

The way you've written every premise is awkward and false. Take #2: True or false: Athletes are only challenged using a wooden or metal stick to hit a round ball. This is false, athletes are challenged in football as well. Every premise is false. Why do you get so hung up on unimportant things, like marriage pre-dates religion, which it does. You keep bringing this ancillary item up because you think you've got something, but not really sure what. At least in western civilization, of which we are a part, the institution of marriage as one man and one woman has been the cornerstone of society and western civilization for over 4000. And while there may have been factions that supported other kinds of marriages and experimented with the institution much in the same way we are experimenting with it today, it was so negligible as to not mention. This is not controversial, and the argument doesn't rely on it. But here's the thing, not everything I've written to date has been nor needs to be directly of use in the particular argument I posted. There are many arguments why marriage should be left alone -- pointed out that it has been around a real long time and no one was offended with it until 10 years ago is a pretty good reason, to me at least, that we ought not hastily overthrow the oldest institution in western civilization. I hope this is clear so you stop. The other thing you keep saying, again as if you've got me, is that I originally stated marriage was about procreation. Yes, I did. And the argument I posted in standard form, this is essential. I'm still arguing and supporting this notion. What is it still with the phrase "in principle' that you don't understand? I've used in the same way the Keyes was using it, and was the reason why I posted the video. If you don't understand it now, I can't help you.

I'll critique my own argument just to show how it's done. #3 read: In order for a culture to survive and thrive, it must foster the bonding between men and children. This seems to be true at first glance, but have tradition gender roles been such that the brunt of parenting was on the mother already, so the need for any significant amount of bonding is largely mitigated if the mother is around? Might it also be good for society that men not bond with their boys that the young boys adopt from their mother a more effeminate persona, that may result in less violence? Something like that would work and be civil...

Thanks for the help. 1. False Done. Argument is valid but not sound. THAT IS IF THIS WERE AN ARGUMENT AT ALL. It's not. And you continue to reveal how little you know about logic. When you put an argument into standard form (meaning no longer in paragraphs, but point by point with a series of premises leading to a conclusion) each premise must be written as a statement such that it can be true or false. None of 2-6 of your 'argument' is a statement that can be either true or false and therefore cannot be evaluated, therefore it's not an argument. It is an explanation of sorts. You didn't look this distinction up I see. Sorry to be so flippant, but I really tire of the poor quality of rebuttals, and all the more annoyed that out of the gate I've been called either directly or indirectly on these threads: pretentious, unconscionable, bigoted, homophobe and that only scratches the surface -- all the while I do have an expertise at this. That doesn't in and of itself make me right, but when people hopelessly can't understand and not even try to understand something that might help them in other arguments (maybe even one's we'll agree on), and act as though they were above these arguments, adjudicating from above with derisive comments to follow, it is insufferable. Horribly so. Diatribe over, but I won't be commenting much further because this has eroded into mush (the responses I get anyway, save Chief maybe), but will show you why mine IS an argument. And the proper way to contest someone's argument is to show why one of the premises is false. 1. In order for a culture to survive and thrive, it must foster (A) - the bonding between men and women. 2. A - the birth and rearing of children 3. A - the bonding between men and children 4. A - a healthy masculine identity 5. A - the transformation of adolescents into sexually responsible adults. 6. The institution of (traditional) marriage is the only kind of relationship that can promote all 1-5. 7. Therefore, society has an interest in promoting, encouraging and incentivizing male and female to not only procreate, but to marry and remain married to promote all 1-5, which are necessary to a culture's survival and well-being. 8. Therefore, society has an interest in encouraging (traditional) marriage. 9. Homosexual relationships cannot accomplish some or all of 1-5 (dare I say in principle -- will this be understood yet?). 10. Therefore, society has no compelling interest to promote, encourage and incentivize homosexual unions. Every premise is written as to be either true or false. If you think a premise is false, say why. It's just that simple folks.

I don't have to suppose any of that actually, and don't (with regard to the argument above). In one case, society has an interest and not in the other. I do in fact think there is utility to laws beyond the laws themselves (not all laws), so I'm not making any claim to whether homosexual "marriage" would cheapen or deteriorate the institution of marriage. My argument above doesn't touch this. Though I do think that when society sends the message that you can get form two moms whatever you could have gotten from a mom and dad, yes... there are real consequences of this attitude becoming a norm... I'm not arguing that it will happen, but there is concern that the shaking bonds of heterosexual marriage be further loosened.

Are some of you really advocating we base our laws on sentiment and whims, even moral relativism -- unprincipled laws and in application? That's tryanny. I don't even know what making laws based on reality (the world as we find it today) would mean if that's the sole criterium. The reality is that not all people pay there taxes, therefore there should be no law requiring people to pay taxes? Murder exists. So what? What follows from that reality? Nothing. The principle of life is used in law to legislate the moral norm that murder is wrong.

Why would this logically follow? Can women do construction? Yes Can men do construction? Yes Can homosexuals have a child? No Can heterosexuals have a child. Yes But more to the REAL point of this bad analogy -- Does society have an interest in men being construction workers and not women -- No.

I'm against divorce, it is especially harmful to children. It's far to easy to divorce and a real shame on today's society. Heterosexuals can meet all of 1-5 in principle (I think you are still not understanding this term), homosexuals cannot. Some homosexuals may be able to fulfill parts of 1-5 in with some success, and in some cases may do better than heterosexuals (except the procreation part of course -- which is the rub), at achieving these. There are, after all some really bad parents out there, and plenty of single moms and dads, far too many. Let me try an example to clear up this confusion. Men are in principle stronger than women. This means that the nature of a man is such that his physiology operates and is constructed to be physically stronger, with bigger muscle mass and testosterone. Women are, by nature (in principle), physically weaker. Of course, though, there are many women who are in fact stronger than men. This is an exception (or accident) to the rule (or essence/principle nature) of the strength of men and women. So, just because some heterosexuals don't procreate and end up being bad parents has bearing on heterosexaul relationships (marriage) in principle. Contrariwise, homosexuals, by nature, cannot reproduce in a homosexual relationship and therefore cannot fulfill 1-5 -- not even an exception to the rule (unlike a particular woman being stronger than a particular man). What other premises should I consider? Am I the only one required to defend things here and show comprehensiveness? On empirical data on children without a mom dad, it is ubiquitous. Do a google search. Did you have a mom and dad? Did they teach you different things. I think this point is pretty self-evident.

1. In order for a culture survive and thrive, it must foster (A) - the boding between men and women. 2. A - the birth and rearing of children 3. A - the bonding between men and children 4. A - a healthy masculine identity 5. A - the transformation of adolescents into sexually responsible adults. 6. The institution of (traditional) marriage is the only kind of relationship that can promote all 1-5. 7. Therefore, society has an interest in promoting, encouraging and incentivizing male and female to not only procreate, but to marry and remain married to promote all 1-5, which are necessary to a culture's survival and well-being. 8. Therefore, society has an interest in encouraging (traditional) marriage. 9. Homosexual relationships cannot accomplish some or all of 1-5 (dare I say in principle -- will this be understood yet?). 10. Therefore, society has no compelling interest to promote, encourage and incentivize homosexual unions. There's an argument in standard form. Granted, it does utilize necessary and sufficient conditions. I take 1-5 from Paul Nathanson, a Canadian sociologist, scholar and homosexual, who concludes from his own research that people are "wrong in assuming that any society can do without [traditional] marriage... and same sex marriage is a bad idea, while gay relationships are not a bad idea." I agree. I don't care what kind of sex you like. If nothing else, this is instructive as to why marriage should not be re/undefined. The relationships of homosexuals and heterosexuals are distinctly different. Therefore, the same word "marriage" does not fittingly apply to both circumstances, purposes and outcomes. Therefore, a different word should be used even in the case that society wants to disregard the substantial merits of the argument (that society has an interest in promoting traditional marriage and not homosexual unions) -- but says, whatever, it's about fairness. It's a distinction with a difference, deserving its own word. There is no appeal to religion, ickiness, nor arbitrary definition (1-5) in the forgoing, so can we please stop with the red herrings, staw men and ad hominem... of course not, that's why it such a joy to post here. Furthermore, you might agree with the argument above but say so what, marriage is good, and while society has no interest in encouraging and supporting homosexual unions, adopted kids by homosexuals in a committed marriage-like relationship can fulfill 1-5 pretty well. I wound't disagree that some can, but in principle (there I go again), and principle is what we base laws on, children with two moms or two dads obviously are deprived of a mother or father, necessarily. Proponents of Homosexual "marriage" must then claim that neither a mother or father is essential to the raising of children. Both claims are implicit, if not explicit: 1) Fathers are not particularly essential or important to children, as a father has nothing unique to offer a child which that child could not receive from a second female parent, and 2) Mothers are not particularly essential or important to children, as a mother has nothing unique to offer a child which that child could not receive from a second father. Both messages are unhealthy, and empirically false.

It's not, just inconvenient for some.

Very good. I've discussed these two horns of the dillemma with colleagues, and just stipulating that the court decides there is an equal protection issue, I'd would support the latter horn, but prefer to let the states decide, again, unless it is decided that equal protection must supersede the 10th amendment. Of course I don't agree that this amounts to an equal protection issue. If so, when did it become discriminatory? I would also prefer to get government out of marriage altogether to avoid the inevitable cases to come, that folks love to ridicule, but will come nonetheless -- that plural marriage would also be found as violating equal protection rights. If marriage is arbitrary, the number of married is wildly arbitrary IMO. It takes a village after all.

Age is an accident of one's nature. Accidents are things that may be different or change, without changing the essence of that being. For example: the essence (or principle) of the eye is to see. Whether one's eyes are green, grey, or blue are unessential -- or accidental to the eye. The natural coupling of male and female is progeny. That's what is meant by "in principle" -- In principle, a homosexual couple cannot beget children, no matter the accidental age of the couple. I'm don't mean to bludgeon you, horn head, with this distinction, but it is paramount. This distinction was made well-known in Aristotle's metaphysics and since. So if I am too jargony for you or others, it's because I'm accustomed to this language and find it immeasurably helpful in order to avoid making superficial claims. I could certainly go on to explain this in greater detail, but don't wish to 'sound' condescending. If you watched the Keyes video I posted, he uses this language. I posted it because I find opponents less likely to name-call (me anyway) if I can appeal to another source, who makes the point crystal clear in my mind, but again, this may need some unpacking for those unfamiliar with Aristotelean or scholastic terminology.

Levi, this is what you wrote: This is where you say "check". Is this correct? I've already agreed with this and expanded on it further. These are purposes of marriage, not limits -- though yes, I certainly agree that the purposes of marriage do and should inform the definition, the scope and limits to who can enter into a marriage. Of course, for me that means one man, one woman. How about you?

I thought I'd answered this several times. The onus is on those who wish to change definitions and grant benefits to argue why? I'm trying to get you to do so by asking what the conditions for marriage must be. All I hear is that you should be able to marry whomever you love. Is that it?

So you don't understand the difference between necessary and sufficient conditions, but know so much about logic and arguments. 1. If it's raining outside, I have my umbrella. 2. I have my umbrella 3. Therefore, it's raining outside. Evaluate the argument, indicating the necessary and sufficient conditions if there are any. I'm sorry, but I feel with must go through this before we can move on because if we can't count to one hundred by tens together, we surely can't do integrations. This coming from the guy who calls me pretentious. Look that word up. Maybe they re/undefined that one for you too.

Do you even want to be taken seriously? If my reasoning is so dubious, you'd do well to expose it and explain why this is so rather than droning on that it is some kind of self-evident truth. Have you wondered why people who used to respond to you no longer do? Insufferable.

A lexical definition from Webster: a (1) : 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 That's what it is (what the dictionary provides - at least for lexical definitions) and I've already provided the why it is -- for the sake of children, the natural end of such a union -- in principle (in essence). The what it is (the definition) is the conclusion of the argument whose premises provide the why. You can stipulate a definition for anything, and your wikipedia definition is just that. Now, I'd like to stipulate that orange juice is the delicious drink comprised of lemons, water and sugar. Ah-ha! There is no orange in orange juice! Agree. Children will have the best chance if parented by both mother and father who are committed to each other -- but when this does not happen (sadly) they still have a financial obligation. Of course financial security is part and parcel to the well-being of a family. Before there was such a thing as alimony and the State, marriage held fathers accountable, kept them around. And as we know, kids, especially boys, are dramatically more prone to violence, poverty and dependence on the state and continuing this cycle when the father is absent (even if providing financial support). Children in father-absent homes are almost four times more likely to be poor. In 2011, 12 percent of children in married-couple families were living in poverty, compared to 44 percent of children in mother-only families. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Children’s Living Arrangements and Characteristics: March 2011, Table C8. Washington D.C.: 2011. In 2008, American poverty rates were 13.2% for the whole population and 19% for children, compared to 28.7% for female-headed households. Source: Edin, K. & Kissane R. J. (2010). Poverty and the American family: a decade in review. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72, 460-479. Father factor in emotional and behavioral problems Data from three waves of the Fragile Families Study (N= 2,111) was used to examine the prevalence and effects of mothers’ relationship changes between birth and age 3 on their children’s well being. Children born to single mothers show higher levels of aggressive behavior than children born to married mothers. Living in a single-mother household is equivalent to experiencing 5.25 partnership transitions. Source: Osborne, C., & McLanahan, S. (2007). Partnership instability and child well-being. Journal of Marriage and Family, 69, 1065-1083 A sample of 4,027 resident fathers and children from the Fragile Families and Child Well-Being Survey was used to investigate the effects of a biological father’s multipartner fertility (having at least one child with more than one mother) on adolescent health. Resident fathers engaging in multipartner fertility were older, more likely to be White, and had lower education levels and income, compared to fathers with one partner. Results indicated children’s externalizing behaviors were negatively affected directly and indirectly when their biological father had children with multiple partners. Source: Bronte-Tinkew, J., Horowitz, A., & Scott, M. E. (2009). Fathering with multiple partners: Links to children’s well-being in early childhood. Journal of Marriage and Family, 71, 608–63 Kids deserve and do better with fathers raising them along with their mothers. This is a fact. There are coping and social skills you get from a mother and different coping and social skills you get from a father. This is well documented. I'd like answers to both of the following: 1. Is love a sufficient condition to marry? 2. Even if the law changes to give homosexual couples the same legal benefits of marriage, why must the word "marriage" be redefined? Should we care about the legal benefits or the word? Why? Why not call it a civil union as I've already shown that there is an essential difference between heterosexuals and homosexuals with regard to the outcome of their sex -- in principle/essence -- namely, the possibility of children. Do you ever get tire of this?

And I've never used religion to argue anything, so what's your point? Why bring it up? Marriage pre-dates organized religion, but religion reinforces it and supports it, correctly so, as it does with many other things in the civil society.

*Bump