Comments on: What the Marriage Debate Is & Isn’t

By: Logike

Logike — Thu, 23 Feb 2012 22:39:24 +0000

Daniel: “‘marriage’ applies to the state-sanctioned SOCIAL INSTITUTION.” ——–Marriage is indeed a SOCIAL INSTITUTION. Marriage is the non-incestuous union between a man and a woman for the procreation and rearing of children. And everyone has a right to this thing, including homosexuals and heterosexuals alike. So every assertion to the effect that traditionalists “deny homosexuals a right to marriage” is FALSE. Listen closely: since you equivocate on the words “marriage” and “to marry” every single time you appeal to a person’s “rights,” your inferences will always be logically INVALID. Your side will always LOSE the argument precisely because you lack a coherent definition of marriage. Period.

By: Logike

Logike — Thu, 23 Feb 2012 20:51:31 +0000

Daniel: “Because, in Logike’s universe, a word can’t mean two different things.”——You’re not very bright are you….. Words can mean two different things, but those meanings must coherently refer to something in the outside world if you are going to say anything truthful by using those words, like the two meanings of the word “bank.” The first refers to a kind of financial institution. The latter refers to the dirt next to a river, a pond, or a lake. So here’s the problem: you can SAY, for instance, that the word “dog” has two meanings, such as Canine and Feline, but that doesn’t mean a dog REALLY IS a Feline, much less that this definition is coherent. The latter definition is false. Likewise, you can SAY “marriage is the commitment of two people,” but you cannot rationally maintain this definition without admitting non-marital incestuous, polygamous, adulterous, and best-friends relationship into the fold as well because you severed marriage from having anything to do with sexual complimentarity, procreation, and family. So your definition is false. For these reasons defining words with meanings which have no coherent connection to the outside world is just an artful way of tossing word salads.

By: Logike

Logike — Thu, 23 Feb 2012 18:14:06 +0000

Daniel: “homosexuals already have the right to marry!”———No, stop equivocating! I am talking about the PRIVATE freedoms of people to have “wedding” ceremonies, to sodomize eachother in the privacy of their own bedrooms, and to make promises to each other however heart-felt and sincere. But since everyone already has these freedoms, what could possibly be your grievance, genius? Since everyone already DOES have a right to these things, what is your objection? For the 100th time, the issue is not whether homosexuals have a right to these things, because they already do! The question is, “Are the sexual relationshps between two men or two women MARRIAGES?” The answer is “NO” because marriage is the non-incestuous union between a man and woman for the procreation and rearing of children. And since everyone has a right to this thing we call “marriage,” including homosexuals and heterosexuals alike, every assertion of yours to the effect that traditionalists “deny homosexuals a right to marriage” is FALSE. You don’t have a case precisely because you don’t have a clear defnition of what this SOCIAL INSTUTITION we call “MARRIAGE” IS. Wake up and smell the coffee!

By: Logike

Logike — Thu, 23 Feb 2012 09:46:11 +0000

Daniel: Huh? Water=H2O. My argument only holds for biological organisms which have various organs, powers, and capacities naturally ordered to carrying out certain tasks according to their proper functions. The heart is for pumping blood, the intestines for digestion, the anus for pooping, the genitalia for procreation. Water may have various uses for organisms, sure, but water itself is not a biological organism ordered to specific ends, obviously.

By: Logike

Logike — Thu, 23 Feb 2012 09:37:18 +0000

Daniel: “Voting is the formal expression of opinion or choice – regardless of who is granted or denied that right, like the right to marry.”———-This is a disanalogy. Everyone may have a right to vote for whomever they want, but not everyone has a right to marry whomever they want. The Marriage Laws already rule against incest, polygamy, and bestiality alike. Sorry.

By: Logike

Logike — Thu, 23 Feb 2012 09:26:10 +0000

Daniel: “But it does not require and re-definition of the word “marriage”.———Yes it does require a re-definition of the word because you keep talking about “legally recognizing intimate associations of persons” OTHER than those male and female associations biologically aimed at the procreation and rearing of children. We’ve already seen marriage cannot be two things at once without contradiction, and your own definition of it is false. So what is marriage again? You fail to realize not all intimate associations are marriages. Friendships are not marriages. Incestuous relationships are not marriages. Adulterous relationships are not marriages either. Try again.

By: Logike

Logike — Thu, 23 Feb 2012 09:08:27 +0000

Daniel: “The SEPARATE QUESTION of who may and who may not enjoy the legal recognition of their close & intimate association”————————————————————So mere friendships are marriages? Since when was the government in the business of giving its stamp of approval to all your personal friendships and forcing everyone else to do likewise?

By: Logike

Logike — Thu, 23 Feb 2012 08:33:34 +0000

Daniel: Once again, I reject your definition of marriage because it is too broad: If marriage is nothing more than a formal commitment between couples, then best-friends relationships like “blood-brothers” are marriages. So you’re stuck in a logical dilemma: Either a mutual commitment is enough to make a marriage, in which case, committed friendships are marriages, or committed friendships are not marriages, in which case formal commitment is not enough to make a marriage. So which is it, genius? You’ve eliminated sex and children entirely from the picture. So I seriously don’t know what you mean by “marriage” at all.

By: Daniel

Daniel — Thu, 23 Feb 2012 00:50:28 +0000

I would LOVE to hear what the definition of “water” is in Logike’s universe. We know that it can be for one and only one ordered purpose, which is perhaps for drinking? (That would mean that swimming and washing are just a couple of disordered uses). And of course Logike’s definition wouldn’t be complete unless it specified WHO is drinking. Because, in Logike’s universe, a word can’t mean two different things. So it can’t be something that people drink AND something that plants absorb AND something that fish swim in. Or, if FISH swim in it, it can’t be something that PEOPLE swim in – obviously that would be redefining “water”. Exhausting !

By: Daniel

Daniel — Thu, 23 Feb 2012 00:00:16 +0000

Logike, you keep asking this question, and you’re inexplicable stubborn in your refusal to recognize that there are two different questions on the table. For you to keep asking “what is marriage” is infantile – that definition has been provided to you many times. The word MARRIAGE designates any close or intimate association or union. That is what the WORD means. The WORD “marriage” sometimes applies to inanimate objects, sometimes applies to concepts, and sometimes applies to the state-sanctioned SOCIAL INSTITUTION of people united by close & intimate association. In the last case, MARRIAGE also infers the 1000+ rights and responsibilities of that close, intimate association. Consider an analogy – voting. While it may have been the practice, the DEFINITION of “voting” was never “a formal expression of opinion or choice, either positive or negative, made by a white, male land owner”. Voting is the formal expression of opinion or choice – regardless of who is granted or denied that right. Another analogy – lunch. Its a mid-day meal, regardless of who is eating it. Same thing with marriage. Marriage is the formal commitment that a couple makes to – devote their lives to one another, – take care of one another, – care for any children that become part of their household. For most couples, there is also a commitment of fidelity. When couples formalizes this commitment to one another, the law imparts on them about a thousand benefits & protections, so one might say that the legal definition of marriage also includes these benefits & protections. BY ALL MEANS it is reasonable to consider who ought and oughtn’t have the opportunity to enjoy the legal protections that society extends to those who may such a commitment to one another. But it does not require and re-definition of the word “marriage”. The SEPARATE QUESTION of who may and who may not enjoy the legal recognition of their close & intimate association IS NOT inherent to the definition of the word “marriage”.