Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Homosexuals sometimes have the ability to have children?
COUPLES sometimes have the ability to have children. Not ever being able to have children is not a valid reason to disqualify for marriage, unless you disqualify all people who are never able to have children (including sterile heterosexuals). Otherwise, you are going to have to find a different factor to separate some couples from others.
Quote:
The sufficient condition of my argument is that the union has the ability to do such, even though in some circumstances, they may be incapable due to a deficiency of some sort.
Homosexuals can never, so it does not meet the sufficient condition.
I am sorry, but you have changed the premise yourself and therefore changed the state of my argument in order to introduce your invalid claim.
I think it best we discontinue this discussion.
You keep saying I'm changing your premise, but you are wrong. Your premise is "the union has the ability to do such" meaning only unions who have the potential to produce offspring should be qualified for marriage.
Now, gay couples are also a union. They are only different from the "normal union" in the same way as sterile heterosexuals are different from the norm: neither have the potential to produce offpsring. You have to come up with something other than "cannot ever produce offspring" if you want to single out gay unions from the rest of the unions, because "cannot ever produce offspring" does not only apply to gay unions.
I approve of equal marriage rights for gay couples, of course, but STATE: Civil rights of the citizens of the U.S., especially the civil rights of minority groups, should NEVER be voted on! Rights are RIGHTS, not subject to the opinion of others!
There is no debating with Nomander, Luckygem and Rayinak. They are blind to anything but heterosexuality. They refuse to see anything but what they want to see. In reality they are scared that their religion may disintegrate if homosexuality is accepted. Religion does not predate us. Religion is a figment of mass imagination, it was created to keep the masses in tow and kept too frightened to make up their own minds without consulting their book first. They want to keep the status quo as is with heterosexuals on top of the heap and gays suppressed at the bottom. The science and biology that defends homosexuality as normal, does not jell with their bible. Try and get them to answer a legitimate question like; When did they choose to be straight? or; IF god created everyone in its image, did he not also create homosexuals? There desire to keep gays and lesbians down and designated as second class citizens with less rights is no different than that of the mormon church's past stance that blacks were less human, or that of the first European Americans that exterminated the native Americans on the basis that they were heathens and thus equal humans. They were not considered gods children and killed wantonly. They will loose this battle over same sex marriage because of their bible. I say we tax the heck out of the churches and get our country out of the hole it is in.
Assumptive, generalized, and focused on dismissal by creating a position to which one can identify as it chooses.
Why are we still arguing the position of homosexuals can't have children like it's somehow relevant to the modern idea of marriage?
Nomander is, and I'm trying to show him that it's special pleading to use this argument to deny marriage to gays but not to other couples who also can't have children.
You are right, potential for a blood line is no reason to deny legal marriage rights to some couples and not others. Nomander will understand this when he realizes that his argument leads to denying marriage rights to all couples who will never be able to create a child together; not just gay couples. For now, though, he seems to be driven by his need to separate gay couples from other couples without a sound logical reason to.
excellent question. I suspect it's because those with narrow religious thought find this to be one of their best "talking points"
I suspect is it because those who are against such logic are emotionally attached and so deviously attempt to evade any question to such by ignoring that a valid point was made!
I suspect is it because those who are against such logic are emotionally attached and so deviously attempt to evade any question to such by ignoring that a valid point was made!
Yippe! Lookie! I can argue on the internet!
So when are you going to come up with a valid point, then? Inability to produce offspring does not single out gays, so it is not a valid point in regard to your opinion that gays should exclusively not be eligible for marriage.
Shall I recap? This is your argument derived from your posts:
A. Marriage's purpose is to propagate blood lines.
B. Gay couples can never propagate blood lines.
C. Therefore gay couples should not be allowed to get married.
Note that you can replace "Gay" with any type of couple who can never propagate blood lines, and you will arrive at the same conclusion. For example: A.Marriage's purpose is to propagate blood lines. B. Sterile couples can never propagate blood lines.
C. Therefore sterile couples should not be allowed to get married.
To say that the first formal argument is valid but the second one is not is called special pleading. Now, here is your chance to add to or edit the formal argument above to reflect what you truly mean, if it is not it. Otherwise, you are exposed as committing special pleading.
Another point to be made here is that premise A (Marriage's purpose is to propagate blood lines) is invalid to start off, so we really don't need to get into the details of your special pleading actually. It is invalid because that is not the only purpose of marriage, and for many couples it is not even a reason at all! On top of that, a couple does not have to be married to have children!
A couple having children of their own vs a couple having adopted children has no bearing on whether they are eligible to get legally married, and I don't think you really want to make it such, do you?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
