Blog on Same-Sex "Marriage," Atheism, and More

[LuisDantas]

What part of "that's only conditionally true" do you have trouble in understanding?

All of it, apparently. Where does it come from again?

I didn't bother responding to the rest because it was mostly an unintelligible mess. I'm not sure if English being your second language (as in my case) or sloppy thinking is to blame.

Are you sure you did not respond to the rest because you are not willing to engage into an actual argument?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I didn't bother responding to the rest because it was mostly an unintelligible mess. I'm not sure if English being your second language (as in my case) or sloppy thinking is to blame.

There was nothing wrong with Luis' post. The meaning was perfectly clear.

 

[Sovereign Dream]

To the extent that it is even true, it is a mistake.

What is a mistake?

That the pivno (thanks, Penguin) view that you offer does not hold much water at all.

Still not sure what you are saying.

Have you ever heard of a society where sterile men or women (e.g., those past the reproductive age) were forbidden to marry?

Are you proposing that such societies should be the norm?

Of course not. What's up with the incessant straw-manning? It seems desperate. For the 17th time, sterile men and women can marry precisely because they form the specific type of union that is ordered towards procreation.

Your alternative isn't much better at all.

Okay. Plan to show how?

 

[Sovereign Dream]

All of it, apparently. Where does it come from again?

Where does what come from? You don't make sense. Second language and all, I suppose.

Are you sure you did not respond to the rest because you are not willing to engage into an actual argument?

Yeah, I'm pretty sure.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'm not saying that "human sexuality" is intrinsically ordered towards procreation; I'm saying that the sexual union between a man and a woman is ordered towards procreation. The very fact that you have to take measures to prevent pregnancy (e.g. contraception) is evidence of this obviousity.

Most of the time, conception cannot occur. The trick is that it's difficult or impossible to tell when conception can occur... which just speaks to my point.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Disagree with what?

Your contention for "the metaphysical comprehensive union between a man and a woman that is ordered for procreation." That being your definition of what a marriage is universally to be. That is what I disagree with.

Marriage has been defined and redefined throughout the ages. It used to be a legal arrangement for the purpose of establishing property acquisitions through blood lineages. It's only been recently when marriage has carried with it romantic connotations, and with women and children becoming less and less considered property, and children considered less and less automatic help on the family farm, the nature of legal/cultural marriage has changed and has turned more into a partnership.

I'm not sure what you mean by "the order for procreation." Furthermore, what do you mean that "gender and biological sex has little to do with that [ostensibly, procreation]"? It's quite obvious how gender has to do with procreation.

I was utilizing your phrasing for fun.

When you say that it is quite obvious, I think you're perceiving gender and sex under - what I contended before - a male ejaculatory bias that sacralizes procreative sex. When you see gender with this particular lens, it's understandable you can equate gender with reproductive organs and find a narrow purpose for only a few parts of them.

I mean, there aren't a lot of procreative purposes for various parts of the female sexual anatomy.

Human females are rare? What?

In comparison with other female species, we are. It's more common for animals to have an estrus cycle where a female is "in heat" that suggests she is ready to mate. Human females have evolved to have more nuanced cycles where signs of fertility are barely noticeable to the casual observer. We are also able to have sex when we are post-menopausal, and not only that, desire to have sex during times when we are infertile.

That's my argument for the rarity of sexual desire present in human females...it's in comparison with other mammals. We gestate, we feed our young through mammory glands, but we have a menstrual cycle and eventually age into infertility while still maintaining desire to mate.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

That's been my experience yes. You probably know who I am referring to. I'm referring to the sort of village atheist that thinks that the cosmological arguments of Aquinas, Leibniz, Craig, Maimonides, Plotinus, Aristotle, et al. can be defeated by posing a simple question: "WELL THEN WHO CAUSED GOD, YOU THEIST TARD?!??!?! LOL PWNED! PRAISE DAWKINS!" These are the sorts of atheists that I consistently come across in my online interactions. Now, to be sure, there's plenty of respectable atheists out there, e.g. Quentin Smith, Graham Oppy, et al. and, though I obviously disagree with them on a number of matters, I nevertheless have great respect for their intellectual rigor and work. But village atheists of the sort who think "THEN WHO CAUSED GOD?!!?!" is a good objection to the cosmological argument (e.g. Dawkins, Krauss, Harris, et al.) I have no respect for.

You don't consider that by playing up some sort of atheist/stoner/child stereotype, you are falling into precisely the same trap or category as those you denigrate?

Meh, your choice. For me, I prefer rational argument regardless of source, and try (usually, but not always successfully) to emulate the sort of argument I prefer.

Well, then perhaps you're not the sort of atheist I am referring to. Again, I don't doubt there are some serious, good-willing atheists out there (again, like Oppy, Graham, etc.). But there are far too many of these "intellectually-challenged-village-atheist-reprobates"

I'm honestly a little confused as to how the usage of stereotypes by these 'intellectually-challenged-village-atheist-reprobates' is less genuine than your own use of strawmen.

Thanks

Anytime. I've noticed the thread has drifted off, which I kinda figured it might, based on the topic. I'll keep my opinions about that to myself for the moment. Suffice to say we don't agree with each other, as already mentioned. But you asked for feedback on your blog, and I'm attempting to limit myself to that topic.

 

[Alceste]

What part of "that's only conditionally true" do you have trouble in understanding?

I didn't bother responding to the rest because it was mostly an unintelligible mess. I'm not sure if English being your second language (as in my case) or sloppy thinking is to blame.

English is your second language? That explains a lot, actually! I'm not sure where you're from, but native English speakers appreciate clear, concise, brief communications with little extra fluff. Try to get your point across in the fewest possible words. Don't add extra words just because you happen to know what they mean and you're impressed with yourself. It puts English speakers off. I'm not even kidding. I even got in trouble for it at work once.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

It quite clearly is the case. If marriage just is the metaphysically comprehensive union

What does "metaphysically comprehensive union" mean?

Do you even know?

between a man and a woman that is ordered towards procreation

Ok, this is getting silly. Clearly coordinating procreation, and the education and socialization of children, is one of the primary social functions of marriage. But it clearly is not the only one- this is not really up for dispute, open any work in sociology on the matter; marriage also has the personal aspect you wish to minimize (companionship and affection), as well as regulating economic consumption and stability, acting as a means of division of labor, reinforcing basic social bonds, and so on. So clearly there isn't just one function or purpose of marriage. But then, there's also the problem that you have no basis for the normative claim you're trying to make here- that the function of being "ordered towards procreation" is somehow more correct or legitimate, even to the exclusion of any others.

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

No. You're making a normative claim, truth or falsity have nothing to do with it.

revealed to be based on a grave misunderstanding and nothing more. It would make no more sense, in this case, for supporters of ssm to declare that we're treating homosexuals and others "unjustly" by "denying them marriage" than it would make sense for men to declare that they are being treated "unjustly" by not being allowed to join a women's debate club, or enter women's restrooms.

Wrong once again. Men have men's bathroom. Marriage is the only game in town. There is a perfectly reasonable basis for separating men and women into different bathrooms. There is no reasonable basis for not only separating, but excluding, gays from the institute of marriage.

What leads us to see that marriage is the comprehensive union between a man and a woman that is ordered towards procreation isn't some "Supreme Council of Everything" as you suggest but rather something much more mundane: namely, reason. The state regulates marriage because it has an interest in children.

Curious, then, that the state regulates other aspects of marriage as well? Oops, eh?

Do you see how you have conceded the point I made above (and, no doubt, before)? You realize that if marriage is the comprehensive union between . . . then ssm is just nothing more than a grave misunderstanding -- a sort of 2+2 = 5.

What a great analogy. Of course, I have conceded no such thing.

But if marriage is just is "people in loving commitments," then one could say the very things I said above (namely, that this serves no public purpose whatsoever, etc.). You're right to see that marriage exists for various purposes and that individuals may choose to marry for a multitude of private reasons, but what matters to the state is the public purpose of marriage.

And there is more than one public purpose of marriage, as covered already.

Better than naturalism, I say.

Unfortunately, you've admitted that you are committed to Thomism, so we know your judgment in this respect is somewhat flawed.

Again, have you ever heard of virtue ethics? There's more out there than just ************** consequentialism, you know?

Yes, please give me a lecture on moral philosophy...

Just as we shouldn't promote divorce (though, to be sure, the state does vis-a-vis no-fault-divorce, the state shouldn't be in the business of promoting fatherless and motherless homes in which to place children.

We aren't talking about promoting SSM, but allowing it- just as we allow divorce. Oops, eh?

This tells us a great deal.

No, it doesn't- just because a case isn't optimal doesn't mean that it is nevertheless bad (this is a false dilemma), so much so that it needs to be legally prohibited, or that it outweighs other benefits of a policy. And this is supposing we grant your premise, which we really needn't do in the first place since it requires misconstruing (or jumping the gun on, at the very least) certain studies concerning children of same sex households.

Childish question. Adult answer: I don't think that we ought to allow single-parent adoption. In circumstances in which an individual in a married couple dies (either the mother or father), the child is deprived of a mother or father, yes, but this occurs without institutional intention. In the case of deliberately placing an orphan in the care of a single parent, this is done with institutional intention and so is, all things being equal, a gross injustice to the child. To be sure, I can think of situations in which an orphan may be placed in the care of a single-parent, e.g. (A) if the single parent is directly and closely related to the child (e.g. a responsible uncle, etc.) or (B) if there are no opposite-sex married couples available to adopt (which is not the case).

It would appear you're not very familiar with the realities of foster care, if you think that remaining in foster care would, in general, be better than being raised by a single parent.

Yes, and this is quite obvious. This just seems like clear and deliberate obfuscation on your part. This is why, say, it's a sad moment in Batman Begins when Bruce Wayne loses his parents, or when Tarzan's parents are killed by the cheetah (or whatever it was), etc. But that's just plainly obvious, isn't it?

I'm not sure cases like that make up a majority; many times a child is placed elsewhere is because the family situation is unstable, and so while they may be unable to appreciate it, being raised in foster care or with a relative, or by one parent, is actually in their best interest.

It is a gross injustice to institutionally and intentionally deprive a child of a mother and father, yes.

Yeah, that's not what we're talking about. Legalizing gay marriage would not institutionally deprive children of a mother and a father. It's not like its going to make anyone's parents *poof*, go away. The only extent to which it would do anything of the sort is by, for instance, allowing gay couples to adopt- in which case, even if same sex households are not optimal (for whatever reason), they are nevertheless going to often be better for the child than the care they would have been receiving otherwise (I mean honestly, are you aware of the conditions of some orphanages around the world?).

The term "gay rights" is question-begging insofar as it assumes that marriage is just the fuzzy loving commitment between individuals when that is a matter of contention in the first place.

No, it doesn't. It assumes that it is a question of rights, and that it pertains to gays. That's a check on both counts, obviously.

 

[methylatedghosts]

I'm trying to make sense of this. Surely you don't mean that same-sex couples literally procreated and have a child for this is impossible. So what you must mean is that, however it happens, some children have found themselves in the care of a same-sex couple. But then what is the point of noting that? I am (conditionally) opposed to same-sex adoption and am unconditionally opposed to surrogacy (or IVF).

How often do you leave from underneath the rock you call home? Or were you caught in a time flux and projected forwards from 60 years ago?

It is naive to think that people can't fall in love with more than one gender. It is naive to imagine that children aren't born out of wedlock. It is naive to think that someone in a same-gender relationship can't have a child from a previous relationship. It is naive to think that a same-gender couple can't be effective parents. Your objections to ssm are immature at best. You have a lot of growth to go through.

Here's something that will be news to most people on this forum, but I'm so sick of views as backwards as yours.

More than 6 years ago, I ended a relationship with a female. Less than 9 months later, my daughter was born. She is the most amazing, most beautiful being in existence (as any father would tell you about theirs). This Saturday I had a date with (oh, shock and horror) another man. What on earth would make you think this would have an impact on my ability as a father? My daughters mother is excited for me - we didn't end on the best of terms, but our friendship now is fairly close - she's human enough to know I'd be happier with a man than I ever was with her. She's wise enough to see I'd be a better father this way too.

None of your objections make any real sense, and I'm so thankful that I live in a country where basic human rights are actually recognised and made into law, and that -given time - my future partner would still be able to provide for and see my daughter if I was to take my leave of this physical existence early.

But if you'd rather live under your rock where the world beyond your limited vision makes sense to you, then so be it. I honestly wish you all the love and success in life that you truly deserve, because as far as I can see, you're going to need it. The world is changing and you will be left behind, this I can promise.

 

[LuisDantas]

Sovereign Dream, it sure seems that you expect people to admit either to be ashamed of acknowledging the validity of marriage conceptions that are not you own - one that is so restrictive that it is impossible to find enforced by any laws - or to somehow surrender to it despite it being indeed too restrictive to even find codified as law anywhere.

Some of us might well come to respect the intensity and sincerity of your feelings if you presented them in an appropriate way. Other than that, I do not expect you to find what you are looking for.

 

[Sovereign Dream]

Most of the time, conception cannot occur. The trick is that it's difficult or impossible to tell when conception can occur... which just speaks to my point.

That conception doesn't often result from sexual intercourse doesn't thereby show that sexual intercourse is not ordered towards procreation. Again, consider: is a football team that wins only 1 game in 100 not ordered towards winning? Of course not. Is a book that is half-legible not ordered towards being read? Of course not. Is an eye that, for whatever reason, is blind not ordered towards seeing? Of course not.

 

[LuisDantas]

That conception doesn't often result from sexual intercourse doesn't thereby show that sexual intercourse is not ordered towards procreation. Again, consider: is a football team that wins only 1 game in 100 not ordered towards winning? Of course not. Is a book that is half-legible not ordered towards being read? Of course not. Is an eye that, for whatever reason, is blind not ordered towards seeing? Of course not.

That would be a good argument against allowing the selling of castrated or otherwise sterile animal breeders.

As an argument against same sex marriage, it is considerably more arbitrary and can be simply disregarded. Despite your insistence to the contrary, marriage does not have to involve reproduction, nor even the intent, capability, desire or even the experience of same.

People are and should be allowed to marry out of love and commitment to each other, you know.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

That conception doesn't often result from sexual intercourse doesn't thereby show that sexual intercourse is not ordered towards procreation. Again, consider: is a football team that wins only 1 game in 100 not ordered towards winning? Of course not. Is a book that is half-legible not ordered towards being read? Of course not. Is an eye that, for whatever reason, is blind not ordered towards seeing? Of course not.

Obviously if conception isn't occurring, it's not "ordered towards procreation" for the people having it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That conception doesn't often result from sexual intercourse doesn't thereby show that sexual intercourse is not ordered towards procreation.

No. If you're going to respond to my posts, please read them first.

The fact that we can't tell when a woman is ovulating tells us that heterosexual human sex is less "ordered toward procreation" than it is in species that exhibit external signs of ovulation (including some of our closest relatives).

The fact that we desire sex even when a woman isn't ovulating tells us that heterosexual human sex is less "ordered toward procreation" than any of the many species that only desire sex when they're in heat.

Again, consider: is a football team that wins only 1 game in 100 not ordered towards winning? Of course not. Is a book that is half-legible not ordered towards being read? Of course not. Is an eye that, for whatever reason, is blind not ordered towards seeing? Of course not.

None of those are appropriate analogies for sex. Also, trying to infer an "order" for sex is an example of the naturalistic fallacy.

Edit: in any case, all of this is irrelevant to same-sex marriage. An argument against same-sex marriage isn't an argument for same-sex couples to be celibate; it's an argument for same-sex couples to have their sex outside the bonds of marriage.

The true implication of your argument is that it's better that same-sex sexual activity happen between bachelors/bachelorettes than between spouses.

 

[Alceste]

That conception doesn't often result from sexual intercourse doesn't thereby show that sexual intercourse is not ordered towards procreation. Again, consider: is a football team that wins only 1 game in 100 not ordered towards winning? Of course not. Is a book that is half-legible not ordered towards being read? Of course not. Is an eye that, for whatever reason, is blind not ordered towards seeing? Of course not.

Is a half legible book still a book?

I rest my case.

 

[Me Myself]

The concept of marriage only for procreation is not only outdated, but is straightforward stupid in today's overflowing population.

Homosexual marriage and adoption is one of the best things to happen actually.

Furthermore, having a highh increase in hmosexual marriage and adoption would be incredibly good for humanity and thousands of children.

In summary, a real big blessing.

We need God to send us more hmosexuals or we ll reproduce ourselves to our extintion!

 

[Alceste]

The concept of marriage only for procreation is not only outdated, but is straightforward stupid in today's overflowing population.

Homosexual marriage and adoption is one of the best things to happen actually.

Furthermore, having a highh increase in hmosexual marriage and adoption would be incredibly good for humanity and thousands of children.

In summary, a real big blessing.

We need God to send us more hmosexuals or we ll reproduce ourselves to our extintion!

Oh he's sent is plenty of homosexuals. We need the ones who are repressing their gay inclinations to realize and embrace their true nature instead of trying to get all the other gays to repress their inclinations too.

 

[StarryNightshade]

Is this thread really still going on? I figured it would die out around page 10.

The OP has his opinion (and blog) and, apparently, won't even listen to those who give any form of criticism (constructive or otherwise).

It just seems like everyone is wasting their time.

 

[Alceste]

Is this thread really still going on? I figured it would die out around page 10.

The OP has his opinion (and blog) and, apparently, won't even listen to those who give any form of criticism (constructive or otherwise).

It just seems like everyone is waiting their time.

The whole reason I come here at all is to waste my time.