Edit: For example, you cannot define "cat" whichever way you like. There may be a number of ways, but there's always the requirement that the result must be distinct from "dog". This is at the heart of my objection to "same-sex marriage", not some religious whiny sentiments like raccoon suggests.
Anyway, almost four years after this post, two years ago, Keith Parsons had another theological debate. It was with a representative of un-gappy God, so you may want to take a closer look.
So that puts us back to my complaint that the natural philosophers seem to sit in their ivory towers making long discourses on what they consider nature without so much as looking out the window or picking up a scientific paper on the subject. That amounts to mental masturbation and full on circle jerk when they debate about it.
You're becoming a mystic, Bel?
The reason I reject the "natural" objection to same sex marriage remains that empirically homosexuality occurs in nature along with mounting evidence that people are born into a sexual orientation, ie it would be unnatural for a someone biologically programmed to seek a partner of the same sex to seek one of the opposite sex.
Doesn't cannibalism exist in nature, including the eating of superfluous young? Shouldn't you, then, applaud it?
Nope, I'm just bored with our atheist and non catholic friends reasoning and "discussing". Therefore I gave them a small lesson on philosophy. They don't understand and I don't care.
But it's Sang's contention that nature trumps argument...
@midnight raccoon's argument is simply that there's nothing inherently good or bad about the fact that an act is natural, but even if there were, being gay is natural. It's @ersi's rhetorical victory that the discussion drifted the way it did.
And couldn't be, because being natural in some indifferent non-good-non-bad way doesn't get you gay marriage, or any marriage for that matter.
At what point did I say that homosexuality being morally neutral conferred a right?
What I said is that it's unconstitutional (read illegal) for the United States to deny same-sex couples marriage because of the equal protection clause of the constitution. In Europe, rechtsstaat very similar.
Is it unconstitutional to deny a "cross-species equal marriage" (normally called bestiality)? Is it unconstitutional to deny "intergenerational marriage" (normally called incest)?
Is it unconstitutional to deny polyamory?
You don't know what marriage is.
marriagenoun1.(broadly) any of the diverse forms of interpersonal union established in various parts of the world to form a familial bond that is recognized legally, religiously, or socially, granting the participating partners mutual conjugal rights and responsibilities and including, for example, opposite-sex marriage, same-sex marriage, plural marriage, and arranged marriage:Anthropologists say that some type of marriage has been found in every known human society since ancient times.2.Also called opposite-sex marriage. the form of this institution under which a man and a woman have established their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.See also traditional marriage (def 2).this institution expanded to include two partners of the same gender, as in same-sex marriage; gay marriage.3.the state, condition, or relationship of being married; wedlock:They have a happy marriage.Synonyms: matrimony.Antonyms: single life, bachelorhood, spinsterhood, singleness.4.the legal or religious ceremony that formalizes the decision of two people to live as a married couple, including the accompanying social festivities:to officiate at a marriage.Synonyms: nuptials, marriage ceremony, wedding.Antonyms: divorce, annulment.5.a relationship in which two people have pledged themselves to each other in the manner of a husband and wife, without legal sanction:
I thought you were badly wrong just that one day, but it seems to be a bad week for you. @midnight raccoon has been (just like you) explicitly arguing that there's nothing wrong with being gay. Even more, that gay marriage is a right. Are rights something neither good or bad? Are rights defined as merely something where there's no harm?
You're using the wrong term here. Polyamory doesn't necessarily involve marriage. I think you mean polygamy. And it most likely is unconstitutional since in the US it's usually practiced by cults and cultish subsets of the Mormonism where it isn't consensual. Why is that you think I have answers for these ridiculous strawman situations? If those situations do come up, the courts will look at the facts of the cases and rule. In the meantime, they have nothing to do with two people of the same sex being in love. Thus far, I'm noting a lack of an incestious couple or a polygamous relationship suing to get married.
Happy now that the discussion has been reduced to dictionary definitions that we all know already? But you're the silly one that demanded a definition, so enjoy.
You should watch this video so you can stop saying such things about philosophy.
That is, unfortunately, the ersi way.
Page created in 0.085 seconds with 42 queries.