It quite clearly is the case. If marriage just is the metaphysically comprehensive union between a man and a woman that is ordered towards procreation, and that this union's public purpose is to attach children to their mothers and fathers, then the so-called "case" for ssm is rendered false...
You'll notice that I asked you to defend the logical problem of evil, not present a critique of Plantinga's Free Will Defense. Anyone -- an atheist, a theist, one who finds the logical problem of evil compelling, one who finds the logical problem of evil not compelling, etc. -- can present a...
Adoption exists to attach children to the parents they need on the unfortunate circumstances that their biological parents cannot raise them (due to death, incompetence, etc.). I'm opposed to surrogacy period, be it done by homosexuals or heterosexuals. It's just that for same-sex couples, they...
Never mind the fact that you don't have to be married to obtain hospital visitation rights and so on. The question here is "why should these benefits be granted in the first place
/" and "why is it in the public's interest to recognize loving commitments"? If marriage is linked to procreation...
And you don't think removing the gender requirement from marriage will "have an impact?"
That's unfortunate. The law, however, shouldn't promote the unfortunate, namely, institutionally separating children from their mother and father.
Again, implementing ssm will not only redefine marriage...
Homosexuals and their supporters seek to change the institution of marriage from one that is of great public significance to one that it essentially of private significance. Most supporters of ssm argue that the purpose of marriage should be amended to the following: the purpose of...
You can't well attach a child to his mother and father by attaching him to a man and a man or a woman and a woman, right (rhetorical question, don't bother answering, especially not with sarcasm)? And, regarding artificial reproduction, that just underscores how an opposite-sex couple is ordered...
That's missing the point and attempting to shift the focus to some amorphous "what if" about x consequences. If marriage just is the metaphysically comprehensive union between a man and a woman that is ordered towards procreation, then it doesn't even make sense in the first place for a same-sex...
What rules of inference commit me to that supposition? Of course, not all married couples have children; some are infertile and some choose not to have children. Nevertheless, all married couples of the opposite sex -- infertile or not -- are still capable of engaging in the kind of act which...
Suppose I grant that. Even then, the issue is what marriage should be. And I would argue that it most certainly should not be what the supporter of ssm contends it should be, namely, an enormous government registry of friendships that will intentionally and institutionally detach children from...
Except that I haven't begged the question insofar as I state such claims in the conditional.
No they don't; each one can only marry someone of the opposite sex.
It isn't surprising that you'd disagree; your commitment to same-sex "marriage" demands that you disagree. I think doing so is hugely problematic, however.
Thanks. I actually pondered that myself. Whether I should include one example and exhaustively build on it or include various and build on each one. Appreciate the input.
Marriage is a pre-political institution that has existed since the dawn of time (or else society would never have continued). Marriage just is the metaphysically comprehensive union between a man and a woman that is ordered towards procreation. But suppose that what you say is true. Even if that...
Note that I'm using "discrimination" in a technical sense, viz. something akin to "selective." I'm not sure what instance of discrimination you're claiming is "unjustifiable" either. As I mention in the blog post, disallowing a man to become a member of a women's debate club is, in a technical...
It's hardly a surprise that they would discuss the logical problem of evil, not only because it was very popular and in the interest of thoroughness, but because it has been veritably refuted! It's the same reason why, say, a Dawkins might trot out Paley and his terrible teleological argument...
That's just conceding my point. Notice that I said that the logical problem of evil has been largely abandoned in academia and that I noted that the probabilistic (viz. the evidential) problem of evil is nowadays more popularly defended in academia.
It isn't an exaggeration that Plantinga's...
That's confused. If marriage just is the metaphysically comprehensive union between a man and a woman that is ordered towards procreation, then no one is being "treated unfairly" or being treated "unjustly" by being disallowed to marry a member of the opposite sex, for it just doesn't make sense...