GeorgeW

educating of offspring. Yes, i am not in favor of not allowing the institution of marriage as defined to include same sex couples. That appears inconsistent to you but to me not out of line with intentions. Whose intentions? Societies of course.

Society was against inter-racial marriage. Was it wrong for the courts to change this?

George

Joseph,

So, marriage is for the purpose of procreation, but you would allow heterosexuals who cannot procreate to marry but deny it to gays even if they can through surrogacy? This seems inconsistent to me.

You mention the "intentions of marriage." This begs the question, whose intentions? It also overlooks the other benefits of marriage such as economic, companionship, sex, etc.

George

. . . and i would even agree from my experience that it can be as committed and loving or even more than a heterosexual couple but it cannot be the same as the intentions of marriage as defined which includes the consummation of that marriage in sexual intercourse in the possibility of offspring.

Joseph, Sterile heterosexual people or post-menopausal women cannot have children You would allow them to marry?

(BTW, gays can procreate with a surrogate parent.)

George

Looking at nature we see in animals and insects that each has a position assigned whether by birth or its societal group. All cannot be treated equal for the good of the whole. Some must give up their lives to protect the group while some do nothing but produce young. And others nothing but gather food, etc... Some are rewarded more favorably than others. Would WE ASK ...IS THAT FAIR?

Joseph, This begs several questions. What do you suggest is the position in our society that a gay person should have? Should insect behavior be a model for humans? Because unfairness exists in the universe, should we as human beings, not strive to make our society more fair (recognizing we cannot achieve perfection)?

George

Equality does not apply to everything. Marriage is not a right. it is a defined privilege reserved by society here at present to a man and woman.

Joseph, the issue is the legal consequences of marriage - taxation, inheritance, etc. These are very much legal issues to which equality does apply.

I personally think that government should get out of the marriage business and deal with this as a civil unions for straights and gays. If one wants a separate, church sanctioned marriage, that would be a personal decision between the couple and the church.

George

The constitution grants no such right as recognizing same sex marriages.

You are right. But, it does guarantee equality before the law. It wasn't so long ago that Whites could not marry African-Americans. But, thankfully, that is now history because of the equal rights protection of our Constitution. Gays, IMO, are not far behind. Homophobia is a losing hand.

George

Dennis, I am getting really repetitive and, I know, it sounds argumentative, but I am still waiting on a rational argument against gay marriage. I don't think asserting religious values is a rational basis for banning gay marriage.

George

All right, but not sufficient for what? To be rational? Or to be persuasive?

To deny gay people the right to marry. To deny African Americans equal rights. To . . . . .

George

Maybe religious people should come up with non-religious arguments against same-sex marriage.

I think that is what they try to do. But, when we scratch the logic surface, we find it is a religious or values based point of view.

George

George, it sounds to me as though you're suggesting that no argument derived from anything but empirical data may be rational as far

as you're concerned.

Dennis, No, what I am suggesting as that any 'values' argument used to impose one's personal values on someone else is not sufficient in and of itself.

George

Joseph,

Yes, we are a democracy and the majority rules however unreasonable it may be at times. But, we are also protected by the Constitution against infringements or our rights which includes issues of equality. Further, the Constitution insures religious freedom. We cannot impose our religious views on others.

A church can grant or deny marriage to whomever they wish. However, they cannot impose their religious doctrines on others.

George

That's true, but do all religious premises lead to conclusions that are inconsistent with logic or empirical evidence? I s'pose what I'm suggesting is that if a person has accepted a religious premise, and their logic, though dependent on that premise, is otherwise sound, then their argument is rational, even if wrong.

Dennis,

I would suggest that if the premise is unsound, then the conclusions that follow from it would also be unsound.

If someone wants to say I don't agree with gay marriage because it violates my personal religious convictions, that is fine with me. My response would be, 'Then don't marry someone of the same sex.' But, I would also say, "Don't tell other people what they cannot do based on your religious convictions.' (unless there is harm involved).

I am still waiting for this rational argument against gay marriage - seriously. I am not trying to argumentative. If there is a sound argument, someone should bring it forth.

George

PS. I am no logic major but it sounds to me like your statement "Furthermore, those who argue against gay marriage on this basis, do not at the same time advocate banning the marriage of sterile people or post-menopausal women. By picking only gay marriage to ban for this reason would not be logically consistent and therefore, IMO, would be based on emotion or prejudice, not reason." may be a propositional fallacy in logic. If you disagree, i have no objection as i am no expert in logic analysis.

If one claims to oppose gay marriage on the principle that marriage is for the purpose of procreation, then they should also oppose marriage of sterile people on the same principle. They don't. Therefore, they are not logically taking this position based on this principle.

George

i believe that counterpoint is addressed starting at page 265 and developed and continued on the next few pages.

What is the counterpoint?

George

George,

Try page 260-263 "How Would Gay Civil Marriage Affect You or Your Marriage?

Okay, and I found the argument serious deficient. It is simply an assertion that gay marriage would weaken "the social expectations supporting marriage." Where is the evidence? What is the logic?

George

This definition of marriage existing only for procreation does not appear anywhere in the U.S. constitution nor does it even appear in the bible.

Furthermore, those who argue against gay marriage on this basis, do not at the same time advocate banning the marriage of sterile people or post-menopausal women. By picking only gay marriage to ban for this reason would not be logically consistent and therefore, IMO, would be based on emotion or prejudice, not reason.

George

Please forgive me for butting in, but this conversation presents an interesting question of definition; it seems to me that in this conversation, there are different definitions of "rational" being used. Any syllogism requires premises, arguments and a conclusion. In order to say an argument is irrational, you could disprove a premise or you could find where an argument is flawed. With religious premises, there's a problem with disproving a premise; all the evidence for religious truth-claims is locked inside people's heads. There is no proving or disproving them. To show them as irrational, you'll have to begin with their premises and demonstrate a mistake in their logic. Otherwise, they're not really irrational, merely mistaken, and only that because they've made a commitment to a religious premise that you disagree with.

I have been using the word 'rational' in the sense that the conclusion is arrived at based on logic or empirical evidence rather than emotion, prejudice or religious grounds. Certainly one could use religious premises such as the inerrancy of the Pope or the literal truth of the Bible, to arrive at conclusions. But, these would not necessarily lead to conclusions consistent with logic or empirical evidence.

George

Most all of his points while i may or may not agree with him use his best capacity for sound reasoniong and rational thought. Me providing a particular statement is irrelevant to my point. I am not advocating an against position. Only indicating there is understanding to be gained by not assuming there are no rational arguments against.

Joseph,

Please state at least one point that you think is sound. I am not asking to you agree with it. If you would prefer not to say, please refer to a specific page in the article that has the sound point. My problem is I have never heard a sound, logical argument against gay marriage.

George

Because your view differs does not make you rational and him (Girgis, Sherif , Princeton University Department of Philosophy) irrational.

I absolutely agree that my view does not make something rational, logical or even reasonable. But, a point-of-view and a rational, logical argument are not necessarily the same thing. I would be interested in what particular argument in the article that you find to be sound reasoning against same-sex marriage.

George

It also speaks of heterosexual marriage that produces children as the "ideal."

Those who argue against same-sex marriage because the purpose is procreation, do not at the same time favor banning heterosexual marriage involving a sterile partner or banning the marriage of post-menopausal women. They don't advocate medical tests to prove fertility. So, the procreation argument is not "rational."

I would agree that procreation and child rearing is a reason for marriage. But, there are others reasons as well; sex, companionship, economic, etc. I would not agree (and neither do they) that procreation should be a requirement.

George

I am not at all interested in a debate or presenting an argument. A summariy already exists at the beginning in the article and then goes into detail in the pages that follow.

Joseph, I don't wish to get into a debate as well. However, I am still waiting to hear rational argument against same-sex marriage. If you or DCF could summarize one or point specifically to one in the articles, I would be most interested. There must be something that you guys found persuasive that led you to post links to the articles.

George

George,

Take a read of DCJ's article quoted above and tell me if it is more or less rational or not at all? It has better credentials than my reference and it appears most rational to me as an argument against.

Joseph, I looked and the article is 42 pages. I don't have the time now to read it and comment. Maybe you or DCF would like to summarize a specific rational argument against same-sex marriage from the article.

George

Well George the real question is... Rational argument to who? For example there is this article. I am neither expressing agreement or disagreement with it but only making a point that "making a so called 'rational argument' of this issue " is highly subjective.

Joseph

Joseph, I glanced through the article and in spite of its title, I found no rational, non-religious argument.

George

Any biology textbook will tell you that the conceptus is a distinct life form with its own DNA. From that point onward, all that changes is his size, level of development, environment, and degree of dependency, none of which has any bearing on his value as a human being.

No biology textbook tells us when this fertilized egg acquires a soul or person-hood. This is the issue and it is a theological or philosophical question.

George

George,

Rational is subjective. IMO, you go out on a limb saying NONE of the arguments against are even rational.

Joseph, I would be interested in hearing a rational argument against same-sex marriage.

George