Gay marriage

[inviere1644]

Ok, as a moderate gay man I'm always interested to see what people on the liberal and conservative spectrums have to say about this issue. So, is it right or wrong? why or why not?

[Polyatheist]

Then what is the protest? Under that premise, all posts are mere semantics, not just mine or even just the ones on this thread. Also, if your permise is correct, everyone who posts on this sight is in effect consenting to a semantic discussion.

The posts on this forum are meant to help people expand their perspective on life, this can easily be done using quantifiable evidence. If you are insistent on only using semantics to communicate, there is no point as you say. I prefer to use evidence as I have shown which leads to a conclusion. Why do you post if you realize semantics don't lead to any greater perspective? No, people choose to use semantics it is not the default discussion preference of most people.

[bluethread]

Then what is the protest? Under that premise, all posts are mere semantics, not just mine or even just the ones on this thread. Also, if your permise is correct, everyone who posts on this sight is in effect consenting to a semantic discussion.

The posts on this forum are meant to help people expand their perspective on life, this can easily be done using quantifiable evidence. If you are insistent on only using semantics to communicate, there is no point as you say. I prefer to use evidence as I have shown which leads to a conclusion. Why do you post if you realize semantics don't lead to any greater perspective? No, people choose to use semantics it is not the default discussion preference of most people.

What is the quantifiable evidence with regard to why laws are enacted, recinded or amended? These are things that are done by the imposition of a governing authority and/or the consent of the governed. Either way, it is through the clear communication of concepts through the use of words that makes that possible, ie semantics. Therefore, if we are talking about legal status, we are invariably tied to semantics.

When did I say that semantics don't lead to any greater perspective? It is you who stated that it only has value, "if this forum actually had an impact on reality". I then said that, presuming that it has no impact on reality, why object to semantics? I beleive that if we clearly communicate with each other (semantics), then we can identify the critical factors to legal marrage and come to some agreement on how that applies to homosexual relationships. Or at least we can come to a clearer understanding of each other's positions.

[Autodidact]

Not true. Prior to your shifting of the discussion from this approach to the use of anecdotal arguments, we had narrowed the scope of marrage protection based on the care of children to parents. I was then propared to examine what qualifies one as a parent.

1. Examine away.
2. That is emphatically not the only purpose of marriage. One purpose, not the only purpose, is to support the stability of the family to facilitate raising children.

By the way, another good approach is to observe what has happened in the states and countries that have permitted same-sex marriage, a group that is growing every day.

Yes, one can resort to arguments of cynical hyperbole. Though this may be a useful tool in emphasising a point, I find it to be less substantial than a thorough examination of the law that one wishes to change.

Well, let us know if you if you ever decide to actually do that.

Cynical hyperbole? Really?

[Autodidact]

The reason this is still being discussed is because, after wrangling with presumptions and biases, we had just begun to find a clear definition of marrage and a parent, such that they can be applied to the existing laws and thus determine if a change to those laws would improve, deminish or have no effect on the underlying purposes of those laws.

I am sorry if you find the throwing out of objections as more reasonable. I believe that approach would be ad hoc at best. It is also prone to focusing more on proving one's point than understanding the role laws have in safeguarding a society and the rights of it's citizens.

Page 18. Were you thinking of starting this approach at some point in this thread?

I am more than willing to get back to this approach, once I have finished answering objections to it. Shall we continue where we left off with identifying what costitutes a parent, ie genetics, adoption, number of years of acquentence, etc.?

You don't need my permission. Identify whatever you like. If I feel like responding, I will.

I would say a parent is someone who is raising a child.

[Polyatheist]

What is the quantifiable evidence with regard to why laws are enacted, recinded or amended? These are things that are done by the imposition of a governing authority and/or the consent of the governed. Either way, it is through the clear communication of concepts through the use of words that makes that possible, ie semantics. Therefore, if we are talking about legal status, we are invariably tied to semantics.

When did I say that semantics don't lead to any greater perspective? It is you who stated that it only has value, "if this forum actually had an impact on reality". I then said that, presuming that it has no impact on reality, why object to semantics? I beleive that if we clearly communicate with each other (semantics), then we can identify the critical factors to legal marrage and come to some agreement on how that applies to homosexual relationships. Or at least we can come to a clearer understanding of each other's positions.

There is where our thoughts differ, I was under the impression this was a question of morality not legality. The question was posed in a moral perspective so I was confused on why you were giving legal/political rebuttals. I have no say on legal issues because I have difficulty applying their non-standard semantics to my perspective (as we have seen in this thread). If I were to bring those semantics to my workplace I would be criticized for my lack of quantifiable evidence. If those semantics work for you in your lifestyle then all the best to you.

[bluethread]

Not true. Prior to your shifting of the discussion from this approach to the use of anecdotal arguments, we had narrowed the scope of marrage protection based on the care of children to parents. I was then propared to examine what qualifies one as a parent.

1. Examine away.
2. That is emphatically not the only purpose of marriage. One purpose, not the only purpose, is to support the stability of the family to facilitate raising children.

Yes, I acknowledged that you had five purposes for government recognized marrage. Our disagreement over whether the government regulating marrage reduces civil liberties as a trade off for a certain degree of stability was not resolved. So, for the moment, maybe we should lay that aside in order to focus on the second purpose, which has yeilded agreement on the fact that it is a limited purpose. That is to facilitate the raising of children, which is limited to the parents of those children. See, it is not a case of aimless rambling and nothing being said. When one keeps ones focus on establishing a systematic method of examining an issue, one can then recall the progress.

So, returning to where we left off. Since, the use of the raising children purpose supports the marrage of parents. How is that term parent to be understood in this context, ie genetic, adoptive, years of contact, emotional attachment, arbitrary designation? The last is of course added to set a limit that gives room for adjustment.

[bluethread]

What is the quantifiable evidence with regard to why laws are enacted, recinded or amended? These are things that are done by the imposition of a governing authority and/or the consent of the governed. Either way, it is through the clear communication of concepts through the use of words that makes that possible, ie semantics. Therefore, if we are talking about legal status, we are invariably tied to semantics.

When did I say that semantics don't lead to any greater perspective? It is you who stated that it only has value, "if this forum actually had an impact on reality". I then said that, presuming that it has no impact on reality, why object to semantics? I beleive that if we clearly communicate with each other (semantics), then we can identify the critical factors to legal marrage and come to some agreement on how that applies to homosexual relationships. Or at least we can come to a clearer understanding of each other's positions.

There is where our thoughts differ, I was under the impression this was a question of morality not legality. The question was posed in a moral perspective so I was confused on why you were giving legal/political rebuttals. I have no say on legal issues because I have difficulty applying their non-standard semantics to my perspective (as we have seen in this thread). If I were to bring those semantics to my workplace I would be criticized for my lack of quantifiable evidence. If those semantics work for you in your lifestyle then all the best to you.

I understand your confusion. I am willing to take a more general view, but autodidact chose to limit this to the issue of legal recogition of marrage, though at times the general nature of the definitions autodidact wishes to maintain makes difficult to focus on the more narrowly defined concepts that legislation requires.

[bluethread]

I would say a parent is someone who is raising a child.

Any person, without qualification? That would include the man who kidnapped that girl and kept her in his backyard for over a decade. I really don't think you would include Him would you?

[Autodidact]

Not true. Prior to your shifting of the discussion from this approach to the use of anecdotal arguments, we had narrowed the scope of marrage protection based on the care of children to parents. I was then propared to examine what qualifies one as a parent.

1. Examine away.
2. That is emphatically not the only purpose of marriage. One purpose, not the only purpose, is to support the stability of the family to facilitate raising children.

Yes, I acknowledged that you had five purposes for government recognized marrage. Our disagreement over whether the government regulating marrage reduces civil liberties as a trade off for a certain degree of stability was not resolved. So, for the moment, maybe we should lay that aside in order to focus on the second purpose, which has yeilded agreement on the fact that it is a limited purpose. That is to facilitate the raising of children, which is limited to the parents of those children. See, it is not a case of aimless rambling and nothing being said. When one keeps ones focus on establishing a systematic method of examining an issue, one can then recall the progress.

So, returning to where we left off. Since, the use of the raising children purpose supports the marrage of parents. How is that term parent to be understood in this context, ie genetic, adoptive, years of contact, emotional attachment, arbitrary designation? The last is of course added to set a limit that gives room for adjustment.

In general, I think it benefits children, when a couple is raising them together, if that couple is able to marry, should they wish to, and government generally wants to, at a minimum, permit that.

I have given a few examples to illustrate that.

There are biological parents, foster parents, etc. Here I'm referring to de facto parents, the peope who are raising children.

As I said several pages ago.

[Autodidact]

I would say a parent is someone who is raising a child.

Any person, without qualification? That would include the man who kidnapped that girl and kept her in his backyard for over a decade. I really don't think you would include Him would you?

Well, that is an odd case. However, in the case of Jaycee Dugard, in fact she did regard her kidnapper as her father, and his accomplice as her mother. I don't think it's a positive example, but they were serving in a parental role, however negative, yes. (Read her book recently.)

However, I think you will agree this is an odd case. Are you trying to tell me that I am not in fact the mother of my children? Because that isn't going to go down very well with me or them.