Beards and Gay Marriage

[PRmerger]

Of course, the syllables “cir-cle” could be used to refer to anything at all. But if we take “circle” as a rigid designator, then what we mean by that designator could never change.

If I start a dialect where “circle” means “ketchup”, I haven’t done anything wrong or incorrect, though.

If someone starts a movement where she wants to start calling this a circle, then you would not be opposed to this movement?

http://etc-mysitemyway.s3.amazonaws...od-icon-symbols-shapes-shape-square-clear.png

 

[Prodigal_Son]

If someone starts a movement where she wants to start calling this a circle, then you would not be opposed to this movement?

http://etc-mysitemyway.s3.amazonaws...od-icon-symbols-shapes-shape-square-clear.png

Of course not. I would find it funny, but I wouldn’t oppose it.

 

[PRmerger]

Of course not. I would find it funny, but I wouldn’t oppose it.

Well, that’s where we differ.

I don’t believe that a society that is founded upon lies is going to be a thriving, healthy society.

Now, of course, you are focusing on the triviality of calling a square a circle.

But think about it: it’s a fundamental mathematical principle. If you start messing with that, imagine how it will affect higher mathematical principles. Imagine the confusion that will arise when engineers start using “circle” when they mean “square”.

It will be the recipe for chaos and confusion.

Not something that I would chuckle over.

 

[Peter_Plato]

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

True we are primarily brains controlling bodies, including genitalia.

However, a couple of points…

1. Those who argue for gay marriage are basing their argument on “orientation” being beyond their control, thus implying that their genitalia IS controlling their bodies and, by extension, their brains.
2. If it is brains that are controlling genitalia then it is a decision by the brain to have children (including all that that entails) that leads to appropriate use of genitalia.

It is NOT
2a) Inappropriate use of genitalia that controls the body and then seeks to justify using alternative means to have children because it was, inappropriately, brains being controlled by genitalia. There would be no need for alternative technical means (in most cases) to have children if most of the individuals in question would simply use their brains to control their genitalia instead of seeking to change law and language BECAUSE they allowed their brains to BE controlled by their genitalia.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Well, that’s where we differ.

I don’t believe that a society that is founded upon lies is going to be a thriving, healthy society.

You continually fix the referent to “circle” or “marriage”. This makes communication harder. So let me ask you this question: is there something important about the syllables “marr-iage” that makes them incapable of referring to anything else but (the Catholic/natural understanding of) marriage?

I don’t think there is. So I think we could call anything whatsoever a “circle”. There would be a serious problem, though, if we didn’t have any word to refer to (the thing we now call a) circle. But we could easily invent one.

If I thought (like you appear to) that the syllables “marriage” *necessarily *indicated marriage, then I wouldn’t oppose “gay marriage” advocates at all. They would be trying to do something impossible, and I would just be amused at their silliness.

As it is, I don’t think what they’re doing is silly, at all. They are appropriating syllables to their ends, and those ends are (whether they know it or not) not beneficial.

But think about it: it’s a fundamental mathematical principle. If you start messing with that, imagine how it will affect higher mathematical principles. Imagine the confusion that will arise when engineers start using “circle” when they mean “square”.

If both engineers know what they mean, no confusion will arise. And we don’t need to worry about people changing fundamental mathematical principles, since mathematical principles aren’t up to us. They are embedded (like marriage!) into the nature of the universe, and we can’t change the nature of the universe.

Please read over my comments with care. Philosophers of language since Plato (and including Augustine) agree with me about the things I am saying here. You can reject conventional views about language, but you shouldn’t do so unless you’re very clear on what those views are.

plato.stanford.edu/entries/reference/

 

[ThinkingSapien]

I don’t believe that a society that is founded upon lies is going to be a thriving, healthy society.

Now, of course, you are focusing on the triviality of calling a square a circle.

But think about it: it’s a fundamental mathematical principle. If you start messing with that, imagine how it will affect higher mathematical principles. Imagine the confusion that will arise when engineers start using “circle” when they mean “square”.

What he is asking seems to be a question of how information is encoded for transmission. Outside of onomatopoeia the concepts and objects that are the refer ants of such words don’t have an intrinsic alphanumeric or phonetic identifier. Instead they are assigned by communities and may be assigned different identifiers/names/spellings/pronunciations by different communities.

If enough people use a word with some other intended meaning then that new meaning can be assigned to a word. Take the word “literally” for example. In Merriam Webster 2013 one of its listed meanings is synonymous with “figuratively” (see this).

Example:
Jerry Falwell:

If you and I do not speak up now, this homosexual steamroller will literally crush all decent men, women, and children…

We often think of dictionaries as the authorities on the spelling and meanings of words. But they also track word usage and are subject to influence of how people use words.

Side note, despite the debate I’ve never seen much confusion when two people of the same set are said to be “married.” I think there is an evolving understanding of how the word is used in our community.

Pardon my mistakes. Sent from my mobile device.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

In Merriam Webster 2013 one of its listed meanings is synonymous with “figuratively” (see this).

That’s literally staggering!

 

[Stephen168]

So this raises a question. If the state were to step out of having any involvement with marriage

The state steps out

and instead issue licenses….that would give a pair of life partner’s rights such as claims to each other’s property, fifth amendment rights, and tax benefits

and the state steps back in.

So are you guys talking about the semantics for the word “marriage” or whether or not to allow homosexual the the privileges and rights that are associated with civil marriage?

In either case would this have an impact on homosexuals engaging in sex? I don’t get the impression that they (or heterosexuals either) are waiting until civil marriage to engage in sexual activities.

It seems to me that in conversations on this subject four different conversations get mixed together.
-What is Marriage?
-What is the governments role (support/discourage/regulate) in marriage?
-Is sodomy moral?
-What is the governments role (support/discourage/regulate) in sodomy?

Usually the conversation is about the second question and is begging the first question. And uses the third to justify their position.

Sorry, that’s my Software Engineering/Computer Science nomenclature showing in which “default” refers to what to do, what selection to use, or how something is to be interpreted unless told to do otherwise. Comes close to meaning the same thing as an “assumption.”

Such as “Internet Explorer is the default web browser on Windows” or “The person’s first initial and last name will be their default username unless another is requested.”

I know that’s quite different than the general exoterric meaning of the word that’s associated with with one’s failure to meet obligations. But I hear that use of the word so rarely that I generally interpret/use it it to indicate an assumed selection.

We’ve had computers in our home for over thirty years and both my sons are software developers, but I just wanted to be clear of your meaning. I also am not comfortable with using the word default because it assumes there are other options: “Do you want Chrome to be your default browser?” knowing Safari and IE are possible choices.

Like the idea of shapes we have used here, marriage is only one thing. Because it is one thing, using qualifiers like natural, civil, sacramental don’t seem necessary to me.

 

[DrTaffy]

DrTaffy;12054273:

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.

Really? You built your house from jellyfish, throw orang-utans on your pizza, and saddle and ride dolphins across the countryside? You sadist!

Or, just maybe, is it possible for one word to refer to a group of things that do indeed differ in various ways?

 

[DrTaffy]

Catholics believe that there is a real thing in nature: marriage.

Great. Now, my challenge to you is to say what this real thing in nature is.

First, as you are making a point about language, let me make one: Catholics, in this sort of debate, often use terms such as “complementary”, “open to life”, or “in nature”, then later on reveal that they are not using these terms in their literal everyday meaning. For the sake of clear communication, it would be nice if you could either specify such idiosyncratic definitions from the get-go, or (ideally) avoid such obfuscatory jargon entirely.

So, if you actually do mean ‘in nature’, then I can think of a few things ‘in nature’ that are related to marriage, but are not referred to as such,

For example:
sex
conception
bearing children
pair-bonding

Of these, pair-bonding stikes me as being the closest to ‘marriage’, but I think we have covered all of those in this thread and (as far as I can tell) ruled them out as reasons to eliminate same sex marriage.

So what thing actually in nature are you referring to?

As far as humans go, I would say that ‘marriage’ covers three different things:

1. social marriage. Recognition by friends, family and neighbours
   2)religious marriage
   3)civil, legal marriage

1 & 3 strike me as obviously social constructs. As an atheist, I naturally consider 2 in the same light, although I realise that you probably do not.

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?

Just as you would object to a powerful muslim majority redefining ‘marriage’ to only refer to muslim marriages and insisting that this was what it had always meant.

 

[Stephen168]

Really? You built your house from jellyfish, throw orang-utans on your pizza, and saddle and ride dolphins across the countryside? You sadist!

Or, just maybe, is it possible for one word to refer to a group of things that do indeed differ in various ways?

Yes, and the clear understanding it produces. See post #447

Great. Now, my challenge to you is to say what this real thing in nature is.
…
So, if you actually do mean ‘in nature’, then I can think of a few things ‘in nature’ that are related to marriage, but are not referred to as such,

For example:
sex
conception
bearing children
pair-bonding

Of these, pair-bonding stikes me as being the closest to ‘marriage’, but I think we have covered all of those in this thread and (as far as I can tell) ruled them out as reasons to eliminate same sex marriage.

I don’t think we have ruled them all out. See post #447

 

[DrTaffy]

Those who argue for gay marriage are basing their argument on “orientation” being beyond their control, thus implying that their genitalia IS controlling their bodies and, by extension, their brains.

Odd argument, not to mention ungrammatical.

Are you arguing that homosexuality is due to a difference in genitalia, not brains or psychology, between gay and straight individuals?

Otherwise, if anything the liberals are saying “these two people love eachother, will benefit from marriage, will benefit society more if they are married, and deserve a priori to be treated as well as any other couple (unless you can give a good reason not to do so)” - none of which refers to their genitalia.

It is the anti-gay-marriage crowd who pipe up to say “no! those two cannot get married! they have the wrong genitalia, Grommet!”

 

[DrTaffy]

Yes, and the clear understanding it produces.

Like that cryptic post.

See post #447

A good example of sloppy communication. Try phrasing complete sentences that express your argument rather than cutting and pasting text at random.

I don’t think we have ruled them all out.

Great. This might have been a constructive post had you explained why, or at least explained which one you felt was the example of ‘marriage in nature.’

See post #447

Irrelevant.

 

[Stephen168]

A good example of sloppy communication. Try phrasing complete sentences that express your argument rather than cutting and pasting text at random.

There were far from random

Irrelevant.

This does summarize your response when the differences are listed

 

[DrTaffy]

This does summarize your response when the differences are listed

This does summarise my response when someone cannot be bothered to articulate their argument.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

God created man and woman. And he told them to increase and multiply. He did not creat two men, he did not create two women. The presumption is that God knew what he was doing. Case closed.

Not even the ancient Romans or Greeks, as morally corrupt as they were, ever dared to suggest that men should marry men, or that women should marry women. That novel idea has been left to the corrupt West of the 20th and 21st centuries.

Linus2nd

 

[PRmerger]

If enough people use a word with some other intended meaning then that new meaning can be assigned to a word. Take the word “literally” for example. In Merriam Webster 2013 one of its listed meanings is synonymous with “figuratively” (see this).

That’s literally staggering!

One has to wonder at your astonishment, Prodigal Son, at this evolution of the definition of a word.

And I am puzzled at the mention of this new meaning by you, Thinking Sapien.

Why is it noteworthy to mention this?

That you find it noteworthy, TS, (and “staggering”, PS notwithstanding your winky icon) seems to make my point.

Isn’t your point that it’s odd, and, well, wrong actually, to have a different definition for a word? It’s so noteworthy that you thought to mention it here: * the dictionary actually has as its definition a word that’s an antonym for it!!* Astonishing, right?

And I am going to make a bet here. I trust in your honesty, both PS and TS. I predict that even if the dictionary says that when one uses the word “literally” she can also mean “figuratively”…you both would never do that.

I know that I wouldn’t.

Because it’s just wrong to say, “Kim, you are literally making me boiling mad right now!”

To wit:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BfrfSYsIAAAj-HB.jpg

It’s just…

wrong.

Am I right? Neither of you are going to start using “literally” when you actually mean “figuratively”…even if the evolution of the word indicates this is correct.

 

[PRmerger]

Odd argument, not to mention ungrammatical.

Hmmm… I noticed this grammatical error, way back when you made it (it was an assault to my eyes the moment I saw it, literally ), but I was too generous to mention it then.

But when you make a comment like the above about an “ungrammatical” argument, it simply is begging me to point it out.

To the limited extent that it matters in maths, I would merely point out that this is what I mean by a circle, I may give the historical etymological background, then get to the relevant points of discussing it’s properties.

Ouch! How that hurts!

 

[Peter_Plato]

Odd argument, not to mention ungrammatical.

Are you arguing that homosexuality is due to a difference in genitalia, not brains or psychology, between gay and straight individuals?

Otherwise, if anything the liberals are saying “these two people love eachother, will benefit from marriage, will benefit society more if they are married, and deserve a priori to be treated as well as any other couple (unless you can give a good reason not to do so)” - none of which refers to their genitalia.

It is the anti-gay-marriage crowd who pipe up to say “no! those two cannot get married! they have the wrong genitalia, Grommet!”

It’s not that they have the wrong genitalia, it is that the self-control to use their genitalia for the natural purpose for which they ARE [seems grammatically clumsy to me but let’s go with it] designed is beyond their control, psychologically speaking. Hence, reason and intention are not the methods by which decisions regarding sexual expression are determined, but instead some physiological “drive” overrides rational determination. Therefore, genitalia and NOT reason drives behaviour, and overrides choice. The mantra of gay advocacy, for example, is that sexual orientation is NOT a choice, therefore, again, genitalia overrides reason.

 

[SplendidSt]

Great. Now, my challenge to you is to say what this real thing in nature is.

…

As far as humans go, I would say that ‘marriage’ covers three different things:

1. social marriage. Recognition by friends, family and neighbours
   2)religious marriage
   3)civil, legal marriage

1 & 3 strike me as obviously social constructs. As an atheist, I naturally consider 2 in the same light, although I realise that you probably do not.

Just as you would object to a powerful muslim majority redefining ‘marriage’ to only refer to muslim marriages and insisting that this was what it had always meant.

Your statements are quite put together and organized, but I am not sure if you understand the dilemma. First, in regard to the three things you suggest cover marriage, a point is made but I don’t think it’s the point you want. Your three examples address types of marriages. That’s not what I, or many others for that matter, are in disagreement with you about. What we are in disagreement about is the definition of marriage itself. The point here is that marriage is defined as type of union, you and I hold to contrary definitions. I am here to find out which definition makes more logical sense. I understand perfectly well your point. I’ll use an analogy fitting to what I understood from your post.

I would say that ‘meter stick’ covers three different things:

1. green meter sticks. that are the color green.
   2)red meter sticks
   3)blue meter sticks

Now what if some followers of “bluedaism” became a powerful majority and made legislation asserting “A blue meter stick is the definition of a meter stick, and always has been”; they proceed to show historic examples of this blue meter stick’s existence and say that red and green meter sticks are not meter sticks because they aren’t blue. This is an instance where you are justified (and I would agree with you) in holding opposition. But the followers of “bluedaism” are wrong because they define meter stick by a certain type of meter stick. This is what you think those who are opposed to “gay marriage” are doing. You think we define marriage by a certain type of marriage, but what I am here to tell you is that this is only due to your personally held definition of marriage as a specific union. Now, I think the definition you subscribe to is incorrect, but until we can flesh out how different our definitions are I don’t think this conversation will go anywhere. I would love to hear your response.