Beards and Gay Marriage

[Prodigal_Son]

That’s right. They are not the same thing. That is why someone would insist they are not the same thing and treat them differently (licensing, parking, etc)

No, I disagree – at least if I follow what you’re saying.

Suppose I were to say, a pebble is “the same thing” as a rock. It is hard to know whether this statement is true or false. Pebbles are kinds of rocks, so it’s true that an individual pebble is a rock. But the word “pebble” does not indicate all and only rocks, since some rocks are huge.

That’s how motorcycles and automobiles are. Motorcycles are a type of automobile, but “motorcycle” does not mean the same thing as “automobile”.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

My point is that things are different and to ignore one mark of a thing, you have something else.

I have no idea what this means. It seems to me, honestly, that you’re not thinking clearly about this.

 

[DrTaffy]

The personality of a man is different from the personality of a woman; sex differences are real, not imagined.

The personalities of any two men are also different. Arguably the differences within sexes are greater than the average difference between sexes.

When you put two men together to build a family, it doesn’t make as much sense.

In what way? There are many same sex couples with what look to me like perfectly functional families.

That sounds difficult, unless you have some sort of suspension device. And cold!

A) Ouch!
B) No. ‘Writing your name in the snow’ is done while urinating. By small boys, of course, no adults would do that.
As the ancient chinese proverb says: never eat yellow snow.

What are we – disembodied souls?

I would like to think that we are primarily brains controlling bodies, not primarily genitalia controlling bodies.

Men and women are different, through and through. The complementarity of men and women has been borne out by millions of years of proof. Is this supposed to be overruled by 15 years of (inconclusive, value-laden, and possibly biased) scientific studies?

Noone is suggesting that men and women not be allowed to marry. But you have yet to show how same sex couples cannot be complementary.

The studies you mention don’t prove your point. We know that female brains are complementary with male brains, right? So suppose that gay men’s brains are like female brains. Now consider what happens when two gay men marry. Two female brains unite. Are *these *complementary, in the relevant sense? I see no reason to believe they are.

They are not female brains, they are gay male brains. The similarity to female heterosexual brains merely illustrates that male and female brains are not as fundamentally and universally different as you claim. So how can you assert that they are not complementary?

Now HERE’S a complementary match, if you’re right about gay men’s brains: Have a straight man marry a gay man. Any takers?

Not so different from what often happened in those societies with ‘two spirit’ traditions.

I do not think legalized gay marriage is good for people, but I also do not think it is wise to push against gay marriage at this historical moment (just as I don’t think it is wise to oppose legal contraception).

So as soon as you have the upper hand you think that you would be justified in forcing your views on the minority? Does this not set a dangerous precedent?

Even if you proved that faithful Catholic married couples don’t do anything other than what gay couples do – and you can’t prove that – you wouldn’t show that gay marriage is the same as the sacrament of matrimony.

As you wish the state to discriminate against same sex couples, is it not on you to show a difference that justifies that discrimination?

Also the Sacrament of marriage is not what is at play here. It is civil marriage.

Two games might involve the same kind of moves, but be entirely different games. Consider basketball versus the game of “horse”. Is there anything basketball players can do in their game that horse players can’t do in theirs? No. But the games are nevertheless very different.

I’m not familiar with ‘horse’, but you have yet to show how same sex marriages are very different, unless you are back to making it all about the genitalia.

 

[DrTaffy]

this is a biological impossibility. A female can be impregnated from a males sperm but as a couple, two females can not create life together. :nope:

But they can, and do, create life. Just with outside help.

So why is a same sex couple that does procreate less worthy of marriage than a heterosexual couple that does not?

 

[DrTaffy]

I don’t like this comparison at all. Why on earth would someone insist that a motorcycle isn’t an automobile?

Personally, so far, I am loving it!

Perfect example of how words can mean different things.

And you broaden the definition of tree to plant and a mushroom becomes a tree because it is a plant.

Psst: Mushrooms are not plants!

 

[Stephen168]

Psst: Mushrooms are not plants!

You’re right. I was thinking of the simple division of life between plants and animals. How bout eukaryote?

 

[Stephen168]

I have no idea what this means.

Maybe you should ask for clarification before you

It seems to me, honestly, that you’re not thinking clearly about this.

 

[DrTaffy]

You’re right. I was thinking of the simple division of life between plants and animals. How bout eukaryote?

But how dare you call them eukaryotes?

They are not trees! Trees are eukaryotes!

You are trying to call two completely different things by the same name!

 

[Stephen168]

But how dare you call them eukaryotes?

They are not trees! Trees are eukaryotes!

You are trying to call two completely different things by the same name!

I built my house from them, throw them on my pizza, and at times saddle them and enjoy a nice ride in the country.

 

[Stephen168]

Automobile
Noun, chiefly North American, A road vehicle, typically with four wheels, powered by an internal combustion engine or electric motor and able to carry a small number of people.
Noun, a passenger vehicle designed for operation on ordinary roads and typically having four wheels and a gasoline or diesel internal-combustion engine.
Noun, A self-propelled passenger vehicle that usually has four wheels and an internal-combustion engine, used for land transport. Also called motorcar.
Noun, chiefly North American, a car.

Motorcycle
Noun, Also called: motorbike a two-wheeled vehicle, having a stronger frame than a bicycle, that is driven by a petrol engine, usually with a capacity of between 125 cc and 1000 cc
Noun, a vehicle with two wheels that is powered by a motor and that can carry one or two people

Of course the terms don’t have the SAME meaning. But I think all motorcycles are automobiles, just like all SUVs are automobiles. “Auto-mobile”, etymologically, just means “something that moves on its own”.

I can, and have, proposed a general definition of marriage that would cover all the meanings of the term in different societies, but that intrinsically does not rule out (for example) incestuous, polygamous, forced, underage or same-sex marriages, as all of those have been current in various civilisations throughout the ages.

We just broaden the definition enough to include everything (make it meaningless) then we can call anything, anything.

I built my house from them, throw them on my pizza, and at times saddle them and enjoy a nice ride in the country.

I was thinking about a guy with a motorcycle who insisted he was driving an automobile. When it is pointed out that it only has two wheels, he responds that “it is steerable, has suspension, transmission, and an engine, WHY are you obsessed with wheels? Automobiles are more than just wheels? Why are you reducing automobiles to wheels?”

It is clear that the motorcyclist is the one reducing automobiles to **“just wheels” **so that he can attempt to remove it as one of the marks of an automobile.

This leads to the question: why does he insist on calling something an automobile which it clearly is not?

I’m not familiar with ‘horse’, but you have yet to show how same sex marriages are very different, unless you are back to making it all about the genitalia.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Automobile
Noun, chiefly North American, A road vehicle, **typically **with four wheels, powered by an internal combustion engine or electric motor and able to carry a small number of people.
Noun, a passenger vehicle designed for operation on ordinary roads and **typically **having four wheels and a gasoline or diesel internal-combustion engine.
Noun, A self-propelled passenger vehicle that **usually **has four wheels and an internal-combustion engine, used for land transport. Also called motorcar.
Noun, chiefly North American, a car.
Quote:
Motorcycle
Noun, Also called: motorbike a two-wheeled vehicle, having a stronger frame than a bicycle, that is driven by a petrol engine, usually with a capacity of between 125 cc and 1000 cc
Noun, a vehicle with two wheels that is powered by a motor and that can carry one or two people.

These definitions are consistent with the claim that all motorcycles are automobiles. Notice the use of the word “typically” and variants.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

It is surely *possible *to make words mean whatever we want them to mean, if we’re powerful enough. But we can’t make THINGS be what we want them to be.

I can call trees whatever I like. But I can’t, by force of language, make something that is not similar to a tree be a tree.

Catholics believe that there is a real thing in nature: marriage. Whether we call this “marriage” or “gobbledeegook”, the thing exists. If people want to call various other things “marriage”, fine. But they can’t make these other things the same thing as the thing we originally were referring to by the word “marriage”.

A variant case, for Dr. Taffy:

Suppose that some powerful people were to say that the word “liberty” no longer was to mean what we have previously taken it to mean. By “liberty”, they mean “freedom to help the government”. Surely you would object to this, no? But you wouldn’t object on the basis that no word could possibly mean “freedom to help the government”. It’s not the **word **that matters. But you would insist that there is another thing – the thing we used to call “liberty” – that really exists and is really important.

Dr. T: I just want to make sure that you understand what we mean by the point about language. Once we have that clear, you have three options: (1) Agree with us, and become Catholic. , (2) Insist that there is a real thing in nature, marriage, but that gay couplings fall under this real thing too, or (3) Deny that marriage exists as a real thing in nature, and assert that marriage is a purely social construct.

 

[Stephen168]

Automobile
Noun, chiefly North American, A road vehicle, typically with four wheels, powered by an internal combustion engine or electric motor and able to carry a small number of people.
Noun, a passenger vehicle designed for operation on ordinary roads and typically having four wheels and a gasoline or diesel internal-combustion engine.
Noun, A self-propelled passenger vehicle that usually has four wheels and an internal-combustion engine, used for land transport. Also called motorcar.
Noun, chiefly North American, a car.

Motorcycle
Noun, Also called: motorbike a two-wheeled vehicle, having a stronger frame than a bicycle, that is driven by a petrol engine, usually with a capacity of between 125 cc and 1000 cc
Noun, a vehicle with two wheels that is powered by a motor and that can carry one or two people

These definitions are consistent with the claim that all motorcycles are automobiles. Notice the use of the word “typically” and variants.

Yes, in the history of the automobile some have been made with three wheels, the Reliant Robin comes to mind. In the USA, no one would every think a motorcycle was an automobile.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Yes, in the history of the automobile some have been made with three wheels, the Reliant Robin comes to mind. In the USA, no one would every think a motorcycle was an automobile.

I am in the USA.

 

[Stephen168]

I am in the USA.

Then you know I’m right.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Then you know I’m right.

I see. And I’m intentionally pretending I don’t know?

 

[Stephen168]

I see. And I’m intentionally pretending I don’t know?

Yes, When someone says the word ‘automobile’ you give them a blank stare because you don’t know if they are talking about the two wheeled vehicle or the four wheeled vehicle parked in front of them. You believe they could be referring to either one of them because either one of them could be automobiles. After all the etymologically of a word is the definition, so you have no idea what the person is talking about.

No, I believe you would know the person was not referring to the motorcycle because nobody ever would refer to a motorcycle as an automobile. You would know that the only use of the word automobile is to refer to a four wheeled vehicle and never the two wheeled vehicle because that is what the words mean in the USA.

Why you are pretending that they have the same meaning, I do not understand

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Yes, When someone says the word ‘automobile’ you give them a blank stare because you don’t know if they are talking about the two wheeled vehicle or the four wheeled vehicle parked in front of them.

This was not the question that was being asked. Certain words are more commonly used to refer to certain things, despite the fact that the technical meaning of the word has a broader range. Let me give a comparison:

Suppose that we had a banquet, and we were serving white wine and port. If someone asked me, “How is the wine?” I would think they were asking about the white wine, despite the fact that port is a type of wine. That’s because, if they were talking about the port, I would think they would use the word “port” instead, since “port” is more specific.

“Motorcycle” is a more specific and informative name than “automobile”, such that we expect people to specify more precisely when they’re talking about motorcycles.

No, I believe you would know the person was not referring to the motorcycle because nobody ever would refer to a motorcycle as an automobile.

This is question-begging.

Why you are pretending that they have the same meaning, I do not understand

I’m not pretending. I’m trying to make the point that a thing can be both an automobile and a motorcycle.

Will you agree, at least, that a thing can be both port and wine?

 

[Stephen168]

This was not the question that was being asked. Certain words are more commonly used to refer to certain things, despite the fact that the technical meaning of the word has a broader range. Let me give a comparison:

Suppose that we had a banquet, and we were serving white wine and port. If someone asked me, “How is the wine?” I would think they were asking about the white wine, despite the fact that port is a type of wine. That’s because, if they were talking about the port, I would think they would use the word “port” instead, since “port” is more specific.

I would not assume they were talking about the white or the port because ‘wine’ is not to used to refer anything more specific than wine in the USA.

I'm not pretending.  I'm trying to make the point that a thing can be both an automobile and a motorcycle.

When someone approaches me on my motorcycle and says ‘nice automobile,’ i’ll agree.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I would not assume they were talking about the white or the port because ‘wine’ is not to used to refer anything more specific than wine in the USA.

“Wine” is not used to refer to white wine in the USA?