Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Definitions of Marriage

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
    I'm less than impressed with today's sorry excuse for a court system, TBH, but that's a personal beef...
    I bet those in the south during the 50s and 60s were also less than impressed. Yet you seem to feel you have some moral high ground compared to them.

    Tell me, sir, in all sincerity, why should your prejudices be allowed when theirs were not?

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by Outis View Post
      I bet those in the south during the 50s and 60s were also less than impressed. Yet you seem to feel you have some moral high ground compared to them.

      Tell me, sir, in all sincerity, why should your prejudices be allowed when theirs were not?
      Because two men cannot procreate together. Nor can two women. That's a biological fact, not a racial prejudice.
      Don't call it a comeback. It's a riposte.

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by Spartacus View Post
        Because two men cannot procreate together. Nor can two women. That's a biological fact, not a racial prejudice.
        As you and I have already discussed, procreation is not necessary for marriage.

        ETA: "Necessary" either in the casual or the philosophical sense.

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by Outis View Post
          As you and I have already discussed, procreation is not necessary for marriage.

          ETA: "Necessary" either in the casual or the philosophical sense.
          Apparently I'm not quite satisfied with your treatment of the subject. If I were ready to concede, I would have.

          Think of it like the second amendment, with a purpose and result clause. The purpose is the reason for the institution, but the result is not totally limited by the purpose. "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." A relatively narrow interest that leads to a broader range of protections.

          Or, less controversially (I don't know how you interpret the 2nd amendment, and this isn't the best place to do it) because the NFL wants to prevent head injuries, it mandates that players wear helmets. Not every infraction related to helmetlessness is one in which the player was at immediate risk of head injury, but the purpose of all such rules is nonetheless to make sure players keep their helmets on.

          Just so, because the state wants procreative relationships, it protects a wider range of relationships that fit into the same category. Because it wants to protect the relationship between mothers and fathers and their children, it protects the relationship between husband and wife.

          Furthermore, even if the state decided to try to protect only fertile relationships, it would be difficult for it to grant marriage privileges only to those relationships for reasons I have previously discussed.
          Don't call it a comeback. It's a riposte.

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by Spartacus View Post
            Apparently I'm not quite satisfied with your treatment of the subject. If I were ready to concede, I would have.
            Spartacus, I want to ask a very serious question. Are you continuing with the argument because you believe the teleos I rejected earlier is still valid, or because the over-riding argument is still important?

            Comment


            • #81
              Now if the state has an interest in marriage, if it has an interest in maximizing the number of stable marriages and in protecting the progeny of interracial marriages from these problems, then clearly. there is scientific evidence available that is so. It is not infrequent that the children of intermarried parents are referred to not merely as the children of intermarried parents but as the 'victims' of intermarried parents and as the 'martyrs' of intermarried parents.
              By the way, what scientific evidence does some children being called "victims" and "martyrs" (with unknown frequencies) consist of?

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by Paprika View Post
                By the way, what scientific evidence does some children being called "victims" and "martyrs" (with unknown frequencies) consist of?
                That's what I wondered, but that is the defense offered by the Virginia official in court. (I believe he was the lieutenant governor at the time.)

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by Outis View Post
                  Spartacus, I want to ask a very serious question. Are you continuing with the argument because you believe the teleos I rejected earlier is still valid, or because the over-riding argument is still important?
                  The latter.
                  Don't call it a comeback. It's a riposte.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by Spartacus View Post
                    The latter.
                    OK, so you're still arguing for a one man-one woman marriage. Do you feel the teleos still stands?

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by Outis View Post
                      OK, so you're still arguing for a one man-one woman marriage. Do you feel the teleos still stands?
                      It still seems to me that there is something to be said for calling man-woman marriage distinct because of its capacity to bear and rear children. I suppose that's a yes.
                      Don't call it a comeback. It's a riposte.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by Spartacus View Post
                        It still seems to me that there is something to be said for calling man-woman marriage distinct because of its capacity to bear and rear children. I suppose that's a yes.
                        OK, I can see that. But because the telos _as given in the argument above_ is not functional, you're probably going to need to develop a different basis on why the one-man, one-woman paradigm is exclusive, or retool the telos given to account for the issues I pointed out.

                        But there's plenty of time. I'm headed to bed for the evening. Have a good night.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by Outis View Post
                          OK, I can see that. But because the telos _as given in the argument above_ is not functional, you're probably going to need to develop a different basis on why the one-man, one-woman paradigm is exclusive, or retool the telos given to account for the issues I pointed out.
                          I did, and you didn't respond to the reasons I gave.
                          Don't call it a comeback. It's a riposte.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            It is not infrequent that the children of intermarried parents are referred to not merely as the children of intermarried parents but as the 'victims' of intermarried parents and as the 'martyrs' of intermarried parents.
                            Not too much of a stretch to say that Barack Obama was a victim of his absent philandering African father and a martyr for his crusading liberal mother.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Which IF true has zero to do with being an interracial couple.
                              The State. Ideas so good they have to be mandatory.

                              sigpic

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                I seem to recall that John Updike wrote an entire book on the archetype long before it happened, so it's not exactly like the pattern is unique or unremarked-on. It's definitely going to have different dynamics for different racial combinations-and anecdotally, most mixed-race kids tend more toward seeking out other mixed-race kids as friends, rather than sticking with black or white. Greatest similarity, number of interests, emotional resonance, and all that.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                                16 responses
                                141 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post One Bad Pig  
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                53 responses
                                378 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                112 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                197 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                84 responses
                                364 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Working...
                                X