dk

dk: I understand what a mess the Foster Care System has become, you don’t. You need to educate yourself. There’s a reason thousands of people in the US go to private adoption agencies to adopt kids from all over the world
Jinto: Failure to answer the question: which part of "There are more kids in need of adoption than there are families to adopt them do you not understand?" You have never even approached this fact.
BTW: it is precisely because I DO understand what a mess the foster care system is that i feel getting kids OUT of it via adoption is better than leaving them there to rot.
dk: I didn’t fail to answer the question, I explained why the question has no meaning. Let me try an analogy, the foster care system in the US is like a 2 cylinder car pulling 20 ton trailer, you want to put gay marriage in the driver seat, and I’m trying to explain it doesn’t matter who drives the car, the car just aint got the horses.

dk: You paraphrased me incorrectly, I corrected you, no big deal. You should have replied, but you’ve been way to big an asshole on this thread for me to let that slide
Jinto: Lie, ad hominem, and you still have failed to show how I misrepresented you.
dk: Alright I’ll snip the ad hominem chit chat.

Jinto: (snip) if you really cannot see why telling me that gay promiscuity is a reason to prevent legal recognition of gay monogamy is an invalid argument, then no amount of explanation is going to get you to recognize your own fallacies. And unsurprisingly, no amount of explanation ever has.
dk: First Promiscuity destroys people’s lives emotionally, physically and spiritually. Second: Chastity and fidelity become their own reward. Third: Marriage orders the life of a husband and wife with love for the sake of children, and consummated by the Marital Act. If gays want the benefits of marriage then they must negotiate their own deal, because they aren’t biologically equipped to consummate marriage. Fourth: When gays leaders took a seat at the table of public opinion they became the subject to public opinion . There record with youth stinks.

dk: Ok, what branch of the extended family tree do you not consider a replication of the nuclear family.
Jinto: the part that includes residence and sharing of familial responsibilities with the parents of the youngest working generation. More to the point though, I can prove that it is archetypical simply through general chronology: The extended family existed in Japan long before the nuclear family, and therefore the nuclear family is a derivitive of the extended family, and not the other way around. Please.
dk: Complex structures are derived from simpler forms, not visa versa. For example: Joules, Watts, Voltage, Calories and Decibels are derived from the basic units of mass, length and width; like the Atomic Model is a derived from protons, neutrons and electrons, like the extended families (complex) is a derived from the nuclear family (simple) i.e. bonds between a husband, wife, sons and daughters.

dk: You said, “All it(gay marriage) means is that instead of the bonding of two people under the law being restricted to opposite sex couples, you now have same sex couples as well” Your statement is fallacious, the fallacy of Illicit Major. To demonstrate the fallacy I listed some predicate members your statement excludes.
Jinto: What? Illicit major is an agrument of the form "All P are Q, no X is P, therefore no X is Q." What I said didn't even resemble that. This is what happened:
dk: P --> Q, R, S, T, U, V...
~(P --> Q, R, S, T, U, V...)
Are you denying P --> Q? Absurd.
No, I'm denying P --> R, S, T, U, V...
Fallacy Illicit Major (non sequitur)
That doesn't even resemble illicit major. Before crying "fallacy," there must first actually BE a fallacy.
dk: Thank you for the explanation, really!!! The nuclear family is a form (archetype) not a proposition, so when P becomes Q, then the form P no longer exists. The law can’t distinguish between the nuclear family and the x-family, and the x-family being more general becomes form used to describe both.

dk: Hey? It’s Gays(male) and Lesbians(female)…, not Gays are Lesbians.
Jinto: From the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition:
gay (adj.) - 1. Of, relating to, or having a sexual orientation to persons of the same sex
All lesbians are gays.
dk: Great Jinto, but in the context is this discussion I’ve necessarily broken the terms out …

• gay : : At some point in the mid-20c.-though occasional evidence exists from about 1935-homosexual men made it abundantly clear that they used the word gay of themselves, and wanted the public at large to use it too instead of the traditional word homosexual, and instead of all the derogatory terms such as fag, faggot, fairy, homo, pansy, and queer. … ----- © Oxford University Press 1968
• lesbian feminism
  Lesbian feminists are largely concerned with issues at the intersection of female identity and sexual-affectional orientation. Issues which arise at this intersection are distinct from those that arise around sex-gender and sexual-affectional orientation in general. Most lesbian feminists hold that self-conscious lesbianism threatens dominant political and social systems in a way that other identities (e.g. as woman or as gay man) do not. ----- © Oxford University Press 1995

dk: Gay marriage is a hypothetical. I can’t define marriage any more than I can define husbandry. If I want to know what these words mean I look them up in a dictionary with context. Marriage means, “the institution whereby men and women are joined in a special kind of social and legal dependence for the purpose of founding and maintaining a family."
Jinto: From the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition:
marriage (n) - 1.
The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.
The state of being married; wedlock.
A common-law marriage
A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage
As I said, you're DEFINING marriages as being required to have a man and a woman, which does not constitute an argument against them being between a man and a man, or a woman and a woman.
dk: The nuclear family is the archetype family courts and law recognize as the basis of civilization. The farther a civilization distorts the form the more it looks like the x-family.

(snip)
dk: I don’t now how to tell you this Jinto, but the gay outreach and support programs are failing miserably. Gay mentors put in positions of trusted authority have betrayed the public trust, and especially the young gays in their charge (4%/year rate of hiv infection). Many abused their young protégés, and the public schools and universities serve them up on a silver platter face down, with cheeks held high. Many aren’t mentors but sugar daddies
Jinto: Ad hominem.
dk: You’re being silly. When gay protégés are recruited by gay clubs, support groups and associations in public schools or community centers the mentors assume responsibility consummate with a trustee. Guy trustees are culpable, like every other adult that cares for kids. People placed in a trusted position of authority to help kids are held to a higher standard. Gay mentors have failed because many promote promiscuous venues to gay youth.

dk: And you fail to grasp the fallacy of the Undistributed Middle. The two elements you’ve errantly placed into one group, “(1) race (2) gays & lesbians”, may share a property but are otherwise disconnected
Jinto: Get it straight: Argumentum ad antiquitatem is a FALLACY. It is also (as my argument showed) empirically inaccurate. Yet you insist on using it. Other fallacies: Argumentum ad logicam (you state that because I give you an argument that if used to prove that gay marriage is okay would be false, therefore that conclusion is false), and Strawman (I used that argument to show you why argumentum ad antiquatem is a fallacy, not to say that gay marriage is okay).
dk: I have no idea what you’re talking about. You’ve equated race and sex, and that’s fallacious. You’ve confused forms with propositions and that’s fallacious.

dk: No, but I’ve said several times, gay marriages mock marriage.
Jinto: And never supported it. In fact, it HONORS marriage: do you not think it praise that people like your concept of marriage so much that that they want to participate in it?
dk: Mock marriages don’t bother me.

dk: I have no idea what non-gay marriage speculates about. Your last statement is a laugher, it starts off with the word “Clearly”“ then goes on to explain “not x or not y”. This construction is anything but clear to me, I don’t have a clue what it means
Jinto: You state P --> Q.
I state P and ~Q, --> ~(P --> Q)
You deploy your IWoWI and state that ~(P --> Q) is (~X or ~y)
I say: huh?
dk: The nuclear family is a form i.e. archetype, not a proposition. But I like all the little symbols, they are impressive.

Jinto: IWoWI - you again failed to respond to my demand that you show a causal connection between gay marriage and the dissolution of your family.
dk: I have, the x-generation and now-generations are the children of broken and amputated homes.

(snip) this is getting repetitive (snip)

Jinto: It is LANGUAGE that allows people to understand one another. Morality governs the behavior of people so that they can get along with one another.
dk: That must be why we communicate so well.

Jinto: It is indeed impossible for me to communicate with someone (namely you) suffering from paranoid delusional disorder.
dk: We belong to different moral worlds that words alone can’t bridge.

(snip) repetitive again (snip)

dk: People can’t understand one another at all apart from the moral law that governs them. In a secular sense the moral law orders the nuclear family, and by extension orders a nation or civilization suitable for social, economic and political intercourse
Jinto: No, morality orders society, "moral law" is a contradiction in terms (morality != law), I can understand immoral people, you do not have to be one to understand one (due, again, to empathy), and again you ignore the anaolgy that YOU made. In fact, there are quite a few other ad hominems I'm waiting for you to retract. And if you cannot understand homosexuals, then you do not have the nessecary logical qualificatoins to discuss them, since you must first understand your subject before discussing it.
dk: Moral laws are principles. Ethics is a science that applies morality in different situations and circumstances. A morality derived from society governs from the median with a bell curve. You seem to have mistaken a normal distribution for moral principle.

Jinto: And again, you did not refute my point about homosexual marriage NOT being purely hypothetical.
dk: I’ll tell you what’s not normal for Holland, a nation with a tradition of tolerance that runs back to the Middle Ages. Its unusual for a grass roots political party to rise to prominence overnight on an anti-immigrant platform, and its even more unusual for the leader of that party to be assassinated two weeks before an election. But in another 10 years it might be as normal in Holland as anywhere else.

Jinto: And you only escaped ad hominem by virtue of the fact that the Netherlands is a country, not a person... wait, you do lambast Fortuyn... never mind. Your post is also an ad hominem.
dk: Ah, man I thought I made it by the skin of my teeth.

dk

Rick, you took me off the hook with the ad hominem "homophobe" comment . I assume you read the Oxford reference to gay and lesbian, above. Its interesting that gays don't want to be called homosexuals, probably because of a hangover from a Fuedian nuerosis. Yet gays seem to have fallen in love with the word "homophobe". What happened to all the lesbophobes?

Bill Snedden

To yguy:

Perhaps this will be more on your level: I'm rubber, you're glue. What you say bounces off me and sticks to you...

grow up, 'K?

dk

Unmarried mothers are an x-family formed to make an amputed family. I suspect, but don't know, this refers to x-Genertion of the 1970s. Since then single moms have been normalized. IVF and sperm donors sever the father/husband bond completely with anonyomity. Lesbians deprive their children of a father. On the other hand I have to admire the commitment and sacrifices many unmarried mothers make for their children whatever their lifestyle.

Treacle Worshipper

As Salmon of Doubt has got an answer to her question, I thought I'd post mine again too:

Why is it ok for me to marry a man but not a woman?

BTW, I do not personally desire or intend to have children, so I have left that part of the discussion out here.
TW

yguy

With all due respect, Mr. Snedden, you're an intellectual coward.

I mean it.

yguy

The question has been answered at least a dozen times by either dk or me. Speaking for myself, if those answers aren't satisfactory, I guess you'll have to either look elsewhere or forget it.

Treacle Worshipper

Er, no, you have been talking about why it's wrong for gay men to marry. I'm a bisexual woman, and I want to know why something which I have no control over (falling in love) should cause such differing consequences, depending on whether I fall in love with a man (acceptable) or a woman (unacceptable).

TW

yguy

If we cannot exclude homosexual relationships from the definition of marriage, we cannot logically exclude x-party marriages, mother-son marriages, etc. And homosexual marriages which try to imitate conventional marriage with respect to child rearing deprive the child of either a mother or a father.

Bill Snedden

Ouch. That really hurt. I do so care about my intellectual standing as judged by the preadolescent mentality...