1

It's important to add that Robert George's analysis is an act-centered analysis.

Thus a corollary of Robert George's reasoning is that oral sex, even between married couples is a sexual perversion. (link). He puts oral sex between married couples on par with masturbation and anal sex (whether between homoesexuals or not) -- all these acts "are not reproductive in type, cannot unite persons organically," and are aimed at sexual gratification without the possibility of procreation.

2

You'd think that people who are quick to attach the label "homosexual" on Haggard would at least pause for a second on the label "bisexual." Given the evidence we have, that seems to be the most appropriate label.

3

There is an alternative way of reading Haggard's claim. Some people want to deny that there is such a thing as having a homosexual orientation. Since we are all naturally heterosexual, and those who are seeing themselves as homosexual are really just heterosexuals whose desires have somehow become perverted (and this leaves it open how that comes about; perhaps it is genetic, perhaps social, perhaps come combination of the two), then no one is really gay. People are just deluded into thinking they are gay because their desires have been turned in the wrong direction.

So the disagreement here is between those who think having those desires turned in that direction constitutes being gay (and thus admit that people are gay but think that is a bad thing) and those who do not (who thus deny that anyone is gay). I don't know if this is what Haggard is thinking, but I think he may mean this, or he may subconsciously be thinking this in denying that he is gay. In other words, it may just be an affirmation that in the ideal created state no one is gay, and anything that might be called homosexual is an artifact of the fallen state and not anyone's nature. If so, then I don't think what you're saying about him follows.

4

That is a pretty lame attempt by the "same sex marriage" group. Do they always have the exceptions make the rule? The reasoning for traditional marriages doesn't hold that all heterosexual marriages result in children, only that by nature and design they produce the next generation. Homosexual relationships, by nature and design, do not.

And no one said they couldn't get married. They do it all the time, sometimes with help from apostate churches. They just crave the government recognition and the (special) civil rights that come with it, because that will speed the indoctrination of public school children.

5

Neil, I was with you until the second half of your last sentence, which strikes me as unfair to a fairly extreme degree. Doesn't it make much more sense for gay people to want hospital visitation rights for the sake of visiting their loves ones in the hospital than it does to suspect them of wanting them merely for the sake of changing the minds of children about the moral status of homosexuality? Surely gay people do want children to come to accept homosexuality as perfectly fine, but it seems to me to be against all the evidence to suggest that that's the primary reason gay people want legal recognition of the status of marriage for gay couples. Most want it first and foremost simply because they want those legal rights.

6

"Since any reasonable person would choose a Mac over a PC, Apple's market share does provide us with an accurate reading of the percentage of reasonable people in our society."
-Roger Ebert

"Never ask a man what computer he uses. If it's a Mac, he'll tell you. If it's not, why embarrass him?"
-Tom Clancy

7

Giuliani wants to keep legal the practice of delivering a child until only its head remains within its mothers womb so the child can be killed by sucking out its brains

Yeah, and I hear he also wants to keep legal the practice of ripping open people's abdomens, yanking their intestines out into the air, cutting off the dangling part of the small bowel near the ileal-cecal junction - what so-called "liberals" always refer to as the "appendix" - crudely sewing up the gaping hole where part of a real human body used to be and stuffing it back in the wound, leaving the victim literally scarred for life, and then throwing the "appendix" into an incinerator as if this once-living, pulsing, warm human tissue were nothing more than medical waste - just because the victim would die otherwise and, brainwashed by the liberal medical establishment, selfishly chooses to live at the expense of the human life they themselves nurture within their life-giving abdowomb.

Of course, rejecting his candidacy for that reason would be insane, but that doesn't seem to be a barrier for you.

One reason people are searching for an adult voice on the right wing (and, having lived under Giuliani's vicious and petulant mayorship, I laugh to hear his name used in that context, but that's another issue) is because right-wingers seem constitutionally incapable of discussing any issue in clear, rational, and factual terms. One test of maturity is whether you approach important policy questions in a rational and considered fashion, or rather allow yourself to be swayed by - or worse, deliberately pursue - irrational grounds for decisionmaking. There may be a rational argument against one particular method of abortion as opposed to others, but hysterically overwrought descriptions of the procedure are not such an argument. Offering, or accepting, such descriptions as contributions to a reasonable understanding of the issue is a sign of intellectual immaturity.

Most invasive medical procedures are distasteful to look at closely, and certainly can be made to sound so, especially if you're crazy. Demanding a ban on medical procedures on the basis of how you describe them, and initiating a manipulative contest to describe procedures in offensive terms as a basis for making policy, are childishly irrational, yet standard tactics among anti-choicers. One thing at least we can say for Giuliani is that he's not that dumb - and people respect that. There may be something to be learned, there.

8

Significantly, that (admittedly humorous) anti-Mac rant never touches on the key issue: Macs are smoother and more reliable than PCs. In 17 years of using a Mac at home and at work (except for one brief 2-year period at work where I was banished to the Dark Side), I have never had a Mac freeze, crash or catch a virus.

Two guys are talking, and one says, "I have proof that Bill Gates is the antiChrist."

"Really!?" his friend asks. "How do you know?"

"Well, if you take a Vista CD and play it backwards, you can hear a Satanic message."

"You think that's bad," the second guy says. "If you play if forwards it installs Vista on your computer!"

9

"All he really has is charisma; he’s the Barack Obama of the GOP."

I am not going to defend Giuliani's multiple marriages. Those are pretty well indefensible; however, to say that all he really has is charisma and to compare him to a young senator with practically no governing experience is a bit simplistic. For 8 years Giuliani was the mayor of a city that has a bigger operating budget than all but a few states. When he took over in NYC, the place was a mess. There were porn shops on every corner, crime was staggering, and something like one in 7 (possibly 8) people were on welfare. The city was a dirty, grimey, cess-pit of crime and hopelessness. It was Giuliani who turned NYC around. He cleaned up the city, forced the porn shops out, cut crime more than in half, and took a multi-billion dollar deficit and turned it into a multi-billion dollar surplus.

I know you don't like Giuliani's abortion position, but his position (maybe he has changed it a little in order to be more appealing to the GOP) is: 'I don't like abortion, I hate abortion, but I don't think you should put a woman in jail or take away her ability to choose to have one.' Now, I don't like that position; however, look at what he is saying and think it through. If all 50 states outlawed abortion tomorrow (as if), or a constitution amendment was made to protect life at conception, would abortion in America end? Answer: NO. As long as there is a desire for a product or service, there will be a market. The abortion market would just be pushed underground. Instead of doctors with sterile tools you would have monsters with rusty hangers. Would abortions be less prevelant? Probably, yes, but more likely you would see blackmarket abortions and people going to canada to have it done.

You aren't going to end abortion by enacting legislation. Changing the law won't deal with the problem, you have to change people's hearts.

My point in sum: Giuliani's abortion position may not be that far away from your own, he just doesn't like your solution to the problem, and he is not just a pretty face with no experience governing... He probably has the most experience of any other candidate.

10

Let's imagine that Giuliani comes out as a holocaust denier. . . . All other things being equal, would he still be the “lesser of the two evils”?

What's the other "evil"?

The answer to your question has to be "yes" if the other evil is worse than being a mild Holocaust denier. Surely there is such a thing (a rabid Holocaust denier, for instance). And if that's your alternative, clearly the first choice is better. Yes?

If, by "all other things being equal", you mean that the alternative candidate is like the Holocaust denier in every way except that they're not a Holocaust denier, then of course the denier is not the lesser of two evils, because they're clearly worse than the alternative in question. But being a Holocaust denier, by itself, cannot make you "the greater of [any possible] two evils" - you must consider the alternative (which in your case you do not specify) and make the decision on comparative grounds. (Since "lesser than" and "greater than" are by definition comparative relationships, this ought to be obvious.)

But you have posed the question as an absolute evaluation. You seem to be saying that Giuliani, as (hypothetically) a Holocaust denier, would be "the greater evil" no matter what, without regard for what the "other evil" actually is. You can't possibly reach that conclusion.

Perhaps you can say that, under those conditions, he's unacceptable no matter what the alternative is - that if the alternative to Giuliani is even worse, you would just refuse both alternatives. You can make that argument if you like (and I encourage you to do so; the more GOP voters that stay home on election day, the happier I'll be), but you can't (rationally) declare that to be a comparative conclusion. Being a Holocaust denier (or anything else) can't make him "the greater of two evils" without regard for what the alternative may be, although it may simply put him below some minimal threshhold of acceptability.

I point this out to note the dangers of absolutist thinking. Many religious conservatives pride themselves on adhering to what they call an "absolute moral standard" (by which they just mean a rationally indefensible one). That leads directly to their tendency to pronounce sweeping moral judgments and to constantly declare perfectly normal human behavior irredeemably beyond the moral pale. Here your moral certainty sweeps away even the meanings of basic logical operations. You seem to think that, simply because you regard something as very bad (an absolute evaluation), you are justified in declaring it the worst thing possible (a comparative evaluation), without even considering what the other things might be. A firm moral conclusion isn't enough - it has to be a sweeping moral conclusion with universal scope, even when the conclusion you offer, by the logical structure of the question that was asked, is inherently contextual.

This kind of approach makes it hard to take any such conclusions seriously.

11

Kevin T. Keith..

So we're supposed to take you seriously as a rational thinker when you compare an appendix to a fetus? That's a very sad joke.

As for your gyrations over absolutists, you certainly have your plot staked out on your moral high ground, and can't even see the hamster wheel you're running on. Please defend your rationally defensible moral relativist standards in some way that makes us believe your self declared moral superior status should be accepted by anyone else..please don't appeal to other individuals who believe the way you do, or governments made up of such..

Your a comedian..

12

So one gay tryst shouldn't make you a homosexual, right? Right?

I'm used to hearing that in its canonical form:

"I give thousands of dollars to charity every year! But do they call me Epstein the Philanthropist? NO! For 30 years I've attended every 4th of July parade and always stood for the national anthem! But do they call me Epstein the Patriot? NO! . . ."

13

A number of factors could prevent a married couple from having a child within three years (e.g., what if the child is stillborn?) so it would be unfair to penalize them for something that is beyond their control. Instead, a more reasonable criteria should be established that is based on actions that are solely within their power. For example, all couples who wish to marry--both gay and straight--must be willing and able to engage in "marital acts", acts that are reproductive in type.

I believe the Catholic Church requires a marriage to be consummated, in other words the couple has to have sex at least once. But this 'reproductive in type' versus 'reproductive in effect' seems like a very spurious distinction to me. What about straight marriages where reproduction is impossible? Say to very old people getting married late in life or where one or both partners has a medical condition that would prevent fertility but not sex?
Seems to me that would not be 'reproductive in type' unless by 'type' you simply mean straight sex regardless of whether or not it is even theoretically capable of causing reproduction.

Grown-Ups for Giuliani? --

Giuliani does not agree with you on abortion and gay rights. I'm not sure why that doesn't make him a grown up with a different POV (even if you feel it's a wrong or mistaken POV) versus "not grown up". I will say, though, that during his reign in NYC Giuliani did seem to me to be given to unneeded outbursts and temper tantrums. Are people basing this 'grown up' thing only by watching his performance in 9/11 which was exceptional but that was also an extraordinary moment. Those who know Giuliani during his more ordinary moments may be less inclined to use the grown up label so easily.

14

So we're supposed to take you seriously as a rational thinker when you compare an appendix to a fetus? That's a very sad joke.

When he makes a rational argument then yes we are supposed to take him seriously as a rational thinker. And he made a pretty good one IMO.

As usual, though, I see yet another example of a pro-lifer whose argument is basically "I'm on the moral side therefore I'm exempt from making rational arguments".

I am not going to defend Giuliani's multiple marriages. Those are pretty well indefensible;

Not for nothing but Giuliani had what, two marriages? Isn't Joe on his third? Unlike Giuliani Joe's previous marriages ended privately without the glare of media attention. How fair is it to really bash Giuliani on a failed marriage? were we sleeping in their bed with them enough to know what was going on and to judge them?

Speaking of Marriage
That is a pretty lame attempt by the "same sex marriage" group. Do they always have the exceptions make the rule? The reasoning for traditional marriages doesn't hold that all heterosexual marriages result in children, only that by nature and design they produce the next generation. Homosexual relationships, by nature and design, do not.

By 'nature and design' marriages produces and provides for the next generation by making this generation more stable and secure. A while ago I asked why no one gets upset when they hear about two very old people getting married but they do look down upon a very old man marrying a very young woman. 'By nature and design' the second marriage couldn't be better for producing children while the first one is about as bad as you can get for producing children. Not only that, if the first couple announced that they were seeing fertility specialists to try to conceive our happy thoughts at these people finding themsleves late in life would probably turn to horror.

The reason I believe is that marriage 'by nature and design' is to provide for the optimum mix of emotional and financial benefits for thoe adults involved in it. When two people are together setbacks like an illness or a lost job are less likely to be diasters which means they are less likely to have to turn to others for help. This in turn means that those who do have kids are less likely to find themselves tapped.

To put it bluntly, the reason we feel good about grandma marrying someone late in life isn't because we think grandma may find a way to have more kids with her older man but because it is more likely that grandma will have someone to take care of her and we can concentrate on caring for our own kids. In fact, grandma might be able to help us more with caring for our own kids.

The reason we don't feel good about grandpa marrying his 19 year old secretary ISN'T because such a relationship will fail to make children. It probably will. We don't feel good about it because we suspect it is less about love and taking care of two people and more about one person exploiting another. We may end up having to take time away from our kids to care for grandpa after his 'wife' runs off with all his money and the pool boy!

15

"When he makes a rational argument then yes we are supposed to take him seriously as a rational thinker. And he made a pretty good one IMO."

When you stumble upon a more powerful force in the universe than your opinion; send out a press release. Maybe we'll pay attention.

16

When you stumble upon a more powerful force in the universe than your opinion; send out a press release. Maybe we'll pay attention.

Are you talking about God or your own opinion? Sure you can tell the difference?

17

"Are you talking about God or your own opinion? Sure you can tell the difference?"

I can tell the difference between an infected appendix and a human fetus. I'd say that gives me a good head start.

18

Are you talking about God or your own opinion? Sure you can tell the difference?

Oh snap! =D

19

right-wingers seem constitutionally incapable of discussing any issue in clear, rational, and factual terms.

This from a person who implies moral equivalence between an appendectomy and a partial birth abortion. I can't imagine a rational person not seeing a difference between an infected appendix and a child capable of survival outside the womb.

20

Of course a fetus is a genetically distinct human being and an appendix is just that, an appendage belonging solely to another human and bearing that person's dna and no others. But simple facts like that are too absolute for relativists.
Let's not go claiming to be the rational adults if you go on confusing the two.

21

Actually wouldn't a relativist not have any position on abortion except maybe a condition one such as 'depends upon what the person believes'? A better term would be absolutist since Kevin's position seems to be that abortion is not wrong while yours is that it is wrong. You're on opposite sides of the playing field but you're both playing in the same stadium.

At this point I would like to point out to those pro-lifers who supposedly reject relativism:

1. If all life is equal then partial birth abortion is no different than first trimester abortion. Making a big deal out of a candidate who refuses to ban partial-birth abortion would be like saying a Nazi who advocated sparing Jews who were skilled arms designers (maybe 0.0002% of the Jewish population) is better than one who would not make such an exemption.

2. Just about everyone who supposedly 'supports' partial birth abortion does in fact support bills that would ban the practice with proper exemptions to protect the life and health of the mother. These provisions are routinely left out of such bans in order to set up a false choice between those who would ban it and those who supposedly support it.

3. Even more ironically supporting a partial-birth abortion ban is just that, a ban on one type of abortion procedure. It's not even a ban on late term abortions. Banning one type of procedure simply opens up the door to the use of other procedures which may actually be more gruesome and more painful for the fetus.

22

"Neil, I was with you until the second half of your last sentence, which strikes me as unfair to a fairly extreme degree. Doesn't it make much more sense for gay people to want hospital visitation rights . . ."

I see your point, Jeremy. Perhaps it will help if I elaborate.

I am sympathetic to the hospital visitation, estate issues and the like for homosexuals. I just think they are used as smokescreens and to drum up sympathy.

The hospital visitation issue could be fixed for everyone (not just gays) without government recognition of same sex unions. If you pay the bills you should be able to allow anyone you want to visit.

Similarly, estate issues could be addressed through other means. Estate taxes are ghoulish and should be abolished for everyone. Having the government profit from your death is a profoundly bad idea.

Finding workable solutions would help those who really care about such things and not muddy the waters so much.

23

Similarly, estate issues could be addressed through other means. Estate taxes are ghoulish and should be abolished for everyone. Having the government profit from your death is a profoundly bad idea.

Hmmm, shall we ban life insurance too? I'd rather have gov't take a bite out of me when I'm dead than when I'm living!

24

Ha!

Remember that life insurance works the other direction - the insurance company is rooting for you to live (I like that plan better).

It's your beneficiaries you have to worry about.

25

I'm always hesitant to battle the forces of right-wing reading comprehension failure. It's a Sisyphean heartbreak every time.

Still, for the benefit of those struggling so mightily (yet so deliciously self-righteously) to parse what I thought was a fairly simple argument:

The "argument" I was responding to was the one that offers Giuliani's failure to support a ban on intact dilation and extraction - one particular method of abortion - as a reason not to vote for him. Joe's discussion offers no explanation why that would be grounds for such a decision, but does go to extreme lengths to make the procedure sound distasteful.

I point out by example that any medical procedure can be made to sound distasteful, using as that example one that even crazy people would not object to. I then state explicitly that the terms used to describe a medical procedure are not by themselves reason to support or oppose it, and criticize the use of inflammatory language in such contexts as immature and irrelevant to the actual decision to be taken.

Let's stop and take stock of this, because I know some of you are getting confused again.

The issue at hand is not abortion.

Take a deep breath and we'll try that again. The point I am criticizing is not anyone's position on abortion. The argument I am making has nothing to do with abortion itself. The example I offer by way of putting my point across in that argument is not intended to imply anything about abortion. I know you saw the word "abortion" and reflexively hit the "Gibber" button, but you're just going to have to reboot and try this again.

It's not about abortion.

What is it about? Well, as I noted above, the criticism I offer was explicitly directed at the language Joe uses in making an argument. (Stop! Yes, his argument was about abortion. But my argument is about the way he makes his argument, not his conclusion. I'm not talking about abortion.) The example I use is an example of similar language about a different issue. (Not abortion!) The commonality they share is the language, not the subject. The example, because it is absurd, invites rejection of the aspect of Joe's argument that is similar to it: namely, the language used. Since that's what they have in common, that's what the example calls into question. (Not the subject of Joe's argument - abortion. Not that.)

After giving that example (of emotionalistic language, not of an argument about abortion), I then explicitly criticize the use of misleading and overwrought language. (See? It's about the language. Not abortion. Not about abortion. Not.)

The entire rest of my post, after the one-paragraph example, discusses language and argumentation. Not abortion. That's a clue to what the post was about. (Yes, the actual subject of the post is a clue to what the post was about.) And it begins with an explicit reference to the comment Joe himself is responding to: the need for an "adult voice" in the GOP. Again with the language, right?

So are we clear on this? My comment is a response to Joe's response to another poster's comment about "adult voices". (I know that's complicated. I'm sorry.) Only one of those various claims or comments was directed at abortion - and that's not what I was discussing.

So your rejection of my position because it does not fit your pre-determined position on abortion is non-sequitur. I wasn't discussing abortion. (Really.) You misunderstood. Because you're conservatives and conservatives can't read. I don't know why. But it always seems to happen this way. If you have something to say about my actual argument (about language [not abortion]), feel free. It will be a useful exercise for you.

I might note, in passing, that your rejection of what you believed was my argument about abortion was in each case also completely devoid of an actual argument against that position, but we should probably save that for the advanced class.

26

Kevin,

Your turgid prose, self-congratulatory rambling, and unbearable can't be serious, right? I mean surely you realize how ridiculous and boring you are? If not let me be the bearer of some bad news, you are an insufferable bore! May God have mercy on your soul for the torture you have inflicted on those who read you comments.

27

Kevin writes, "intact dilation and extraction - one particular method of abortion."

Why the resort to technical medical speak to obfuscate the perfectly clear and descriptive language "partial-birth abortion"? Doctors are perfectly comfortable saying "heart attack" without resorting to the medically correct "myocardial infarction," and they're happy to say "nose job" instead of "rhinoplasty."

But when there are moral implications to the procedure, then it's suddenly "Let's hide behind the big words." Orwell had something to say about this:

“In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible. . . . Thus political language has to consist largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness. ... This inflated style is itself is a kind of euphemism. A mass of Latinate words falls upon the facts like soft snow, blurring the outline and covering up all the details. The great enemy of clear language is insincerity. When there is a gap between one’s real and one’s declared aims, one turns as it were instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, like a cuttlefish spurting out ink.” (From "Politics and the English Language"

28

A lot of this talk about the purpose of marriage misses an important point put very articulately by political philosopher Sam Schulman in the Nov. 2003 issue of Commentary magazine:

Marriage can only concern my connection to a woman (and not to a man) because ... marriage is an institution that is built around female sexuality and female procreativity. (The very word “marriage” comes from the Latin word for mother, mater.) It exists for the gathering-in of a woman’s sexuality under the protective net of the human or divine order, or both.

This was so in the past and it is so even now, in our supposedly liberated times, when a woman who is in a sexual relationship without being married is, and is perceived to be, in a different state of being (not just a different legal state) from a woman who is married. ...

A woman can control who is the father of her children only insofar as there is a civil and private order that protects her from rape; marriage is the bulwark of that order. ...

For a woman, the fundamental advantage of marriage is thus not to regulate her husband but to empower herself—to regulate who has access to her person, and to marshal the resources of her husband and of the wider community to help her raise her children.”

NB: Schulman confuses the Latin root of marriage. He should have said matrimony (derived from mater, mother.

29

A woman can control who is the father of her children only insofar as there is a civil and private order that protects her from rape; marriage is the bulwark of that order. ...

Odd, how does marriage protect a woman from rape? In fact, some legal intrepretations have held that a man cannot legally rape his wife, so much for 'protection'.

For a woman, the fundamental advantage of marriage is thus not to regulate her husband but to empower herself—to regulate who has access to her person, and to marshal the resources of her husband and of the wider community to help her raise her children.

Sounds like Sam Schulman has created an argument for prohibiting gay males from marrying each other but permitting lesbian marriage.

Shall we have more exercises in public policy by analyzing the Greek and Latin roots of various words? The only wordy profession worse than lawyers are philosophers.

30

to tom: I'm confused by Shulman's definition of marriage. Isn't a woman protected against rape not by marriage, but by anti-rape laws, the police who enforce them, and the judicial system which punishes rapists? It doesn't matter whether a rape victim is married -- or whether anyone is married: rape is illegal and brings severe penalties and life-long infamy upon anyone who perpetrates it. I don't see why any of this should depend on marital status or marriage in general. It seems to depend only on our notion of individual rights and human dignity.

31

Re: Schulman and "rape," that's precisely what he's saying; we need a civil order to protect her. But he's also saying in the following part is that marriage also protects her by limiting by law and convention how many sexual partners she should have, thus making sure that she knows who is the father of her children and thus being able to make claims against him, backed up by society.

That some cheat or ignore this principle is no reason to do away with the principle.

32

I sort of see what you're saying about marriage and securing responsible parents.

But have you ever heard of this very interesting ancient society in India called the Nayar? I read about them in "The Third Chimpanzee" by Jared Diamond. Among the Nayar, women freely took many lovers simlutaneously or in sequence, and husbands accordingly had no confidence in paternity. To make the best of a bad situation, a Nayar man did not live with his wife or care for his supposed children, but he lived with his sisters and cared for his sisters' children. At least, those nieces and nephews were sure to share one quarter of his genes.

Just thought I'd throw that out there -- just because it's interesting. I'm mot really making any hard point with it.

33

I sort of see what you're saying about marriage and securing responsible parents.

But have you ever heard of this very interesting ancient society in India called the Nayar? I read about them in "The Third Chimpanzee" by Jared Diamond. Among the Nayar, women freely took many lovers simlutaneously or in sequence, and husbands accordingly had no confidence in paternity. To make the best of a bad situation, a Nayar man did not live with his wife or care for his supposed children, but he lived with his sisters and cared for his sisters' children. At least, those nieces and nephews were sure to share one quarter of his genes.

Just thought I'd throw that out there -- just because it's interesting. I'm mot really making any hard point with it.

34

So how does this apply to gay marriage again? If Rob and Steve down the street are married then Jill gets to sleep with every man on the block?

35

Sorry, I should have quoted Jared Diamond's words. The description of the Nayar are in his words not mine.

36

Schulman's point is valid but like many philosophers he makes way too much of it. Yes marriage does help in establishing paternity and even in keeping rape to a minimum since it does set limits on who can legitimately have access to a woman. There are plenty of other institutions that also serve and help those purposes and marriage is a lot more complicated than just establishing paternity & preventing rape.

If that wasn't the case then why does society approve of older single people getting married? Paternity and rape are not factors there.

37

The Institution of marriage is still valid for older or infertile heterosexual couples because it proscribes certain behavior, e.g., an older man with a wife past menopause is still biologically capable of sowing his oats and causing paternity problems elsewhere, but his marriage vows restrict this. The same for infertile couples; presumably one of them is fertile, but the institution of marriage keeps them within those bonds, not causing trouble elsewhere.

As someone else said, just because some cheat or ignore the principle is no reason to do away with the principle.

38

Wait a second, how is the old man with an old wife going to go get other women pregnant? Why if the purpose of marriage is to restrict women to only having sex with men they are married too then he cannot go without another woman without violating social mores.

If that is the purpose and the only purpose then it would be logical to dissolve marriages when one or both partners become infertile. That would free the older man to marry the younger woman who could not (for whatever reason) find a young man to marry. Thereby we would be assured that as a whole we would be taking every opportunity for procreation.

Likewise by assuring as many young, fertile women are married as possible we minimize the opportunity for children to be born out of wedlock. Dissolving older infertile marriages would be a potent way to do this since now young women would have much more choice and young men would have to compete with older (and presumably more established) men.

The philosopher has clearly stumbed upon one reason to have marriage but if we assume it is the only or even the main reason we reach absurd conclusions as we do above. The fact is having children and raising them is only a period in a person's life. If they were marriage's primary purpose there'd be little need to have marriages last more than 10 or 20 years.

Marriage exists for the two people who are married to provide each other with mutual support and aid. Like it or not children here come second. You shouldn't be having children until you are on a firm foundation first and that is what marriage is good (not perfect) at providing.

39

Hmmm, maybe I should have made my comment differently. How about..I can tell the difference between an appendectomy and an abortion NO MATTER WHAT KIND of language is employed. No amount of language manipulation changes the reality of any procedure.

Kevin, if you're looking for an exercise for the advanced class, perhaps try looking into the definition of 'self righteous', then reread your post. Also try 'condescend'. When you're speaking to your many friends, and you can't help but notice that they are opening up their veins with any availabe sharp object...this could be a helpful tip..

40

I agree with Boonton and I support gay marriage. I don't think anyone here though is capable of being persuaded to the other side by logic and arguments.

For me, I could only change my position after two things happened: (1) I met gay people and got to know them personally, and read a lot of essays by gay people about what it's like to be gay and why they thought being able to marry was important for them; (2) I abandoned the idea that the Bible is the inerrant word of God.

The power of personal testimony, and the actual sight of gay couples acting in every sense -- besides the mechanics of sex -- toward each other and their children just like straight couples, with love and devotion, is a more powerful argument than any piece of logic or deduction. Here's one good documentary to watch. If you watch this, you would have a hard heart to deny that gay couples can't love each other in the highest and noblest sense of love, and also form solid, loving families with children.

So the question for me came down to: am I for more love in the world, or will I oppose that in the name of some dogma?

41

Oops, I meant to write "CAN love each other in the highest..."

42

I loved the Mac rant! As a long time PC user and and IT professional, I appreciate and enjoy PCs. I also find most Mac addicts terribly obnoxious about their pets.

There are some new knock offs of the Mac vs PC commercial that are wonderful. I've got them on my blog if you want to take a look. They turn the whole thing around and show the PC as responsible while the Mac is self absorbed and irresponsible. My son sent them to a few of his Mac addict friends and they were horribly offended.

Then the truth hit me. Mac users define themselves by their Macs. No PC user I know does the same. While those Mac vs PC commercials have annoyed me because they are wholly inaccurate, I also enjoyed the humor in them. They were marketing genius! Turn the commercial around and show it to a Mac addict and they find their sense of humor has deserted them entirely.

43

Kevin, if you're looking for an exercise for the advanced class, perhaps try looking into the definition of 'self righteous', then reread your post.

But nothing I've written here has been self-righteous (literally: judging oneself to be righteous on the basis of one's personal inclinations or prejudices). My judgment of myself to be (logically) righteous has been entirely rational and based upon objective grounds. Everything I've written here (excepting one small joke) has been focused on the language or logic employed by others in their faulty attempts to discuss important issues. The most-recent contribution was to point out the utter lack of comprehension displayed of my previous posts. That's entirely substantive commentary - the general thrust of which was to encourage the same on the part of others who had until then failed to demonstrate it.

Also try 'condescend'.

Of course I'm condescending. The people I was responding to are beneath me in knowledge and understanding; I literally can't talk to them without condescending. They were objectively faulty in their attempts to approach important issues in a rational manner - they were simply wrong. I knew that, and thus knew something they did not. Worse, when I attempted to benefit them by pointing out how they were wrong, many of them failed to comprehend the lesson, demonstrating themselves to be incapable not merely of understanding their own issues but of understanding the explanation of their failure to understand the issues. I have to bend down at least two levels of rational analysis just to reach them (and apparently that still wasn't far enough in at least several cases). That's what condescension is for: it allows people like me to talk to people like you on your level.

When you're speaking to your many friends, and you can't help but notice that they are opening up their veins with any availabe sharp object...this could be a helpful tip.

Now, that was funny.

44

We must remember that God is the giver of life. Even if a man and women decide that it's time for them to have a baby, it's ultimately in God's hands to make that happen.

Good post!

45

Marriage is a sacrament. It's none of the state's business. The state should just do registered households, if there's a point to them (which most of us sacramentally married people seem to think there is).

46

To impute to those who oppose same-sex marriage the argument that “gays can’t reproduce” as a reason that they should not be able to marry (i.e., the purpose, or one of the primary purposes, of marriage is to produce children, and since gays can’t reproduce they don’t qualify) is merely a distortion of their arguments. The only people making this “absurd and flawed” argument are the SUPPORTERS of same-sex marriage, such as The Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance. I’ve never seen those who oppose same-sex marriage make this argument.

That is, this is a classic strawman argument.

The Washington DOMA initiative is meant to undermine the "procreation argument", of course. It means to suggest that marriage exists for other purposes than procreation.

But supposing that marriage is not concerned primarily with reproduction, then what really would be its concern? The most plausible possibilities are that:

1) marriage concerns the emotional and affective relationships that people may have for others

or

2) there is none. It exists merely as a legislative whim.

One problem for the first is that if marriage does concern the emotional and affective relationships people might have, then why must this be limited only to one person and another? Why should it not be extended to all emotional and affective relationships, whether this be towards one other person, several persons, animals or objects? Who can judge the worthiness of one's love? Is not all love equal?

Secondly, what would be the state's interest in sanctioning and promoting these affective relationships? Why should it care if a man loves a woman, if another man loves a man, or if a man loves his goldfish?

That leaves number two. Civil marriage is simply a whim of the state.

The whole issue of same-sex marriage belongs clearly in Lewis Carroll's world of Wonderland. If gay rights activists can be reproached for only one thing, it is for injecting irrationality and craziness into the politics and world-view of societies.

47

God site. Thanks!

48

God site. Thanks!

49

God site. Thanks!

50

God site. Thanks!

51

God site. Thanks!

52

walgreens pharmacy

53

Thanks 123 adware

54

Thanks 123 adware

55

Thanks 123 adware

56

Thanks 123 adware

57

Thanks 123 adware