This is not accurate. I expressed as a personal view that I would generally counsel someone with known infertility not to get married; I didn't express it as an absolute, but as a general piece of advice. There was no reference to "Church law" concerning infertility. The only references to Church law I made had to do with impotence, not infertility. Just like civil law in civil law, under canon law failure (or inability) to consummate the marriage is a grounds for annulment.

Bet you're fun to be around...

Does it make any difference to you that this precise "level of abstraction" concerning the definition of marriage, in both civil and canon law, predates by many centuries even the slightest hint of debate about homosexual marriage? It's not like I (or anyone in the last 15 years) just came up with this account of what marriage is specifically in order to exclude gays.

Convincing you of a generally Aristotelian understanding of nature is a little beyond what can be accomplished in a thread like this. Would you be willing to grant a conditional similar to "if there were some meaning to the claim that the reproductive act is naturally ordered to reproduction (even when one of the partners is infertile), then BTirish's view would be more reasonable?"

As for the various examples you compare, doesn't what you write suggest that having one's sex changed is no more significant a change than going from being infertile to being fertile?

In before "you are making too many assumptions" and "history says you can't use that word."


No still waiting. I thought madnak was out best hope but he has resorted to linking to something about buttered toast and how he is disappointed with us for not recognizing he might be anti-gay marriage but not bigoted. And as pointed out many times, yes ignorance is another option. Just like the holocaust denier. It is possible they were born into strict parents or are not curious enough about the world to challenge what their crazy boy scout troop teaches them. So here we have a non-bigot with an overwhelmingly bigoted, but ultimately ignorant view.

There seems to be a fear about changing of the mind and having a belief you have an emotional investment in challenged from the anti-SMS/GM crowd. Only thing I can come up with at this point to explain all of the goalpost moving nonstop. Note that even though I am pro-SMS/GM/HeaumeauxM I am open-minded if anyone has a remotely good secular reason. Still waiting.......

Also, I like that bunny admits to arguing as a dictator in these threads, and is also I presume immune from having his beliefs changed. Lucky I am not gay and bunny isn't in charge.

Are any of the people arguing against me willing to admit this much: BTirish has a coherent set of reasons supporting his view? (You could agree with that, even if you think one of my premises (e.g., sex between infertile heterosexuals is relevantly distinct from homosexual sex) is false. Does it help to remind everyone that I haven't argued directly against civil unions, just against calling heterosexual and homosexual relationships by the same name, marriage?

I mean, this whole exercise on my part has been under the project of the thread topic, to see if anyone was willing at some point to say "okay, I see that you have reasons and aren't just a bigot, but I disagree with you because. . ."

Thx , tpir. Kinda wish I hadn't read your post though. Provided it's correct, it shatters my perceptions of both madnak and bunny. Thought they'd be on our side.

No difference at all. Why should it?

Even terming it 'the reproductive act' is trying to stack the deck. The copulation of the infertile is not a 'reproductive act'.

I don't see how, but so what if it did?

You might want to trust your perceptions more than tpir's reading comprehension.

The way you made it sound was that I just "stopped" at this account precisely in order to exclude gays. I was pointing out that this is not the case.

First time anyone's objected, but fine. You still didn't answer the question: if what I have to say concerning heterosexual sex (that it's naturally ordered to reproduction even if one of the partners is infertile) is in fact meaningful and correct, then would you say that my position is more reasonable?

Oh I definitely believe that "deep down inside" you agree with us, but all of this meta- and high roading has gotten old re: this thread. Either you have a secular reason you can state in two sentences or you don't, so which is it?

I am fully aware of your sick high level argument that not all toast-butterers are necessarily anti-butter but I would like to see you drop down out of the clouds and pragmatically apply it to anti-gay marriage. If you don't want to that is your prerogative but calling my reading into question is aids. Also I responded to you re: your "parable", the person should just change their mind because they are wrong. The end.

I thought I did that, in my own way, of course.

I don't really understand the question. I wouldn't care if the government removed itself from marriage altogether. As it stands, if it's going to extend the privileges to one section of the population, the constitution demands that it extend those privileges to the rest of the population. It's only a matter of time before it happens.

This makes little sense. There are a multitude of reasons to get married aside from having kids as has been pointed out to you several times. How you, other people, religious groups, etc, view marriage is irrelevant to how I view marriage or anyone else views marriage. It is further irrelevant in the legal sense as becoming legally married makes no mention of having children.

It's only a matter of time before DOMA is overturned on constitutional grounds.

That's the thing, it's not meaningful. The vast majority of sexual encounters are not for procreation.

Not sure where tpir's getting his notion from.

Sure, your views are consistent, but still bigoted. You view gay marriage and gay sex as unnatural and bad. Your reason is that it's unnatural and bad. You argue that gay marriage goes against tradition, but you don't say why changing tradition is bad, which makes it seem like this isn't really your issue.

Also, there's no reason to not be open here: do you support civil unions for gay couples and marriage for hetereosexual couples?

Inasmuch as you formulated the argument in order to oppose gay marriage, then this is in fact what you did. But what I mean is that you stop at the level of 'penis + vagina' in order to include marriage for the infertile. You don't follow your premises to their logical conclusion.

If my objection didn't apply, would I still object? No.

This is not the first time someone's objected. The whole point of us bringing up infertile couples throughout this thread -- we don't agree that sex is just a reproductive act, even if between a man and a woman (and even if both are fertile).

Also, you are correct about my other post -- I did confuse you saying impotent instead of infertile. I don't think it changes the heart of my post, but I did misrepresent your exact view.

Let's try this one more time.

* The legal status of a man's vote is not changed by a redefinition of "voter."
* The legal status of the pre-existing concept of "voter" changed through women's suffrage.

Are you okay with this distinction?

Now,

* The legal status of a straight couple's "marriage" would not be changed by a redefinition of "marriage."
* The legal status of the pre-existing concept of "marriage" would be changed if it allowed for gay marriage.

Do you understand?

I have noted in several places ITT that there are issues about confusing the social and legal contracts that the word "marriage" currently encompasses. I've noted that future questions about other types of social arrangements in the future may require yet another redefinition of the concept of marriage. I've also noted that it might be a better solution to create a legal status of "civil union" that includes both gay and straight marriages for the purposes of creating legal privileges.

Not in legal documentation. And that change will help the conversation to move forward.

Okay. I guess I just don't understand what you're meaning to say, then.

Nor would I, but that's not addresing the point.

What is the "rest of the population"? Because you have not set aside an actual concept of "marriage" you have failed to create any sort of legal boundary for the application to the "rest of the population."

Suppose a trio of gay guys all want to get together and create a family unit. Would equal protection mean that they should all have access to the same legal rights as a heterosexual couple?

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...9&postcount=88

This is allegedly madnak's take on why we can't be certain of everything. Because sometimes we have bad premises given to us by trusted sources and history? Really mind-boggling stuff but I would assert that unless this is more meta- that madnak's standards of evidence are very bad.

I was speaking about madnak specifically. His view was the one confusing me the most and still is kind of. I only commented on the dictator style as being lolz in general. I am not a dictator fwiw.

Thx, that was a relief. Can I count at least the tpir's part of the post about my question as correct?

I know that your ability to read in context is often lacking, so let me quote the paragraph that precedes the part you quoted:

The equal application argument seems to be pointing to the penalties and has nothing to with the argument structure that you've put forth.

It's not.