Proposition 8 violates the Equal Protection Clause

[secular_freedom]

I read them. You didn’t address my objection-you dismissed it with a few brief comments.

Talk about talking points.
:banghead:

By the way, I did not simply repeat what I said. I brought up something new. But you would have actually have had to have read my post and thought about it, instead of dismissing my points immediately so you could repeat your own talking points.

No, you didn’t. I addressed every one of your contentions, multiple times. When did you bring up something “new” that I didn’t address before? It’s easy to claim I didn’t address something without being specific (which enables you to dismiss me and bow out of the discussion). But can you get specific here? What argument did you offer that I haven’t responded to?

 

[captainmike]

“male and female he created them.” this passage, from genesis 1:27, is what proponents of gay marriage reject. they will never be happy until we live in an androgynous world. they want a world devoid of genders. to them, male and female mean nothing. masculine and feminine mean nothing. they want a world of artificially created sperm and eggs. a world in which women cease being mothers, and men cease being fathers. a world in which sex has nothing whatsoever to do with procreation. why do they want this? because they think they can create a world better than the one God gave us.

 

[Oresteian]

I know, I’m probably just banging my head on the wall, but I’m going to try this one more time.

It is not discrimination. We heterosexuals **WANT homosexuals to marry us! We want them to become like us!

That is what is dramatically different between those bad laws that prohibited inter-racial marriage. Bad racist didn’t want certain minorities to mix with whites.

Heterosexuals are often willing mix in marriage with homosexuals. Homosexuals are the now ones who want to discriminate. Homosexuals often are the ones who refuse to marry someone who is too sexually different from them. Prop 8 insists that marriage be sexually diverse: one man, one woman. Think of it like a quota. The quota for one man and one woman in marriage helps prohibit discrimination.

You’re right it’s not discrimination. It’s better characterized as cultural imperialism by the religious right to secure hegemony over the “other”.

I find it disturbing that you Prop 8 supporters are flipping the argument on it’s head by claiming that homosexuals are the ones in fact being discriminated against. Homosexuals oftentimes cannot see their partners in the emergency room or have it understood that their partners get any belongings they own in the case of their death, but there is crusade against heterosexuality because homosexuals want to have the same freedom in the same respect (marrying their romantic partner) as heterosexuals.

Was the quota “one man, one woman” biblically established? if so, where, and why should anyone accept it?

 

[Oresteian]

“male and female he created them.” this passage, from genesis 1:27, is what proponents of gay marriage reject. they will never be happy until we live in an androgynous world. they want a world devoid of genders. to them, male and female mean nothing. masculine and feminine mean nothing. they want a world of artificially created sperm and eggs. a world in which women cease being mothers, and men cease being fathers. a world in which sex has nothing whatsoever to do with procreation. why do they want this? because they think they can create a world better than the one God gave us.

Your religion has no place discussing secular law. Not everyone is Catholic or Christian. Why should I accept anything on the basis of religion?

 

[captainmike]

Your religion has no place discussing secular law. Not everyone is Catholic or Christian. Why should I accept anything on the basis of religion?

i take it that you do not contest my description of what gay marriage proponents want?

 

[Oresteian]

Are you saying that the premise of needing a mommy and a daddy to create a family is not true?

I am saying that the arguments for “traditional” marriage based on historicity and pragmatic considerations are unsound. Marriage had little to do with creating families and more about keeping wealth within a group and resolving conflicts. Furthermore, biblically speaking, marriage was hardly ever “one man, one woman” as polygyny was quite common.Lastly, no one needs to have one’s parents married to have a “mommy and a daddy” so we can have children and build families without being married. Indeed, there is no legal requirement that one be married to have children, nor is there any legal requirement that in order to be married, one has to be able to or desire to reproduce with their partner.

 

[Oresteian]

i take it that you do not contest my description of what gay marriage proponents want?

No I am categorically dismissing everything after your mention of Genesis 1:27 as it has no place in a discussion of secular legal matters. Please base your arguments on objective data points and the law.

 

[Oresteian]

You’re right it’s not discrimination. It’s better characterized as cultural imperialism by the religious right to secure hegemony over the “other”.

I find it disturbing that you Prop 8 supporters are flipping the argument on it’s head by claiming that heterosexuals are the ones in fact being discriminated against. Homosexuals oftentimes cannot see their partners in the emergency room or have it understood that their partners get any belongings they own in the case of their death, but there is crusade against heterosexuality because homosexuals want to have the same freedom in the same respect (marrying their romantic partner) as heterosexuals.

Was the quota “one man, one woman” biblically established? if so, where, and why should anyone accept it?

That was an edit…wanted to clear that up

 

[Betterave]

Try “Any human can select the beetroot of their choice to marry, so there is no discrimination between humans on the question of marriage.” (Yes Betterave, I do know some French.)

lol! good on ya!

 

[Betterave]

Your inability to understand my analogy meant that I could not follow through on the analogy so I changed to a piece of British humour. It was both an apology and sarcasm at the same time. This requires interpreting a piece of text in two different ways at the same time. Presumably your inability to interpret my analogy in a non-literal manner has carried over into your inability to interpret my follow-up in two different ways. Please look back at my analogy and try to treat it as an analogy. We will communicate much better that way.

So here it is with the repeated word “non-romantic” removed, since it seems extraneous:

-Under Propostion 8 a heterosexual man cannot marry another heterosexual man.
-Under Propostion 8 a heterosexual woman cannot marry another heterosexual woman.
-Under Propostion 8 a homosexual man cannot marry another homosexual man.
-Under Propostion 8 a homosexual woman cannot marry another homosexual woman.
Thus, both heterosexual and a homosexual are treated the same - there is a consistent application of the biological criterion of sexual complementarity.

-Under Virginia law a white man cannot marry -]another/-] a I will make this correction throughout] black woman.
-Under Virginia law a white woman cannot marry a black man.
-Under Virginia law a black man cannot marry a white woman.
-Under Virginia law a black woman cannot marry a white man.
Thus, both whites and blacks are treated the same - there is a consistent application of a racist criterion.

See where the analogy breaks down? I assume you do, and so:

You may be, but I am not. I am talking about the logical structure of your argument, not about the specific criterion which is used to select marital partners. Try “Any human can select the beetroot of their choice to marry, so there is no discrimination between humans on the question of marriage.” (Yes Betterave, I do know some French.) Race is not relevant to my point here, I am looking at the logical structure of your argument.

…your claim is obviously not sustainable - race is relevant, and your failure to notice this is the reason why you mistakenly thought you had a sound analogy. As for beetroots… no idea where you’re going with that one - LOL!

And in my mirror world heterosexuals are not being deprived of anything. They can marry someone of the same sex just like homosexuals do. Would you feel deprived or not if you were living in this mirror-world?

I speak for myself, but no, I would not feel deprived. I would understand that “marriage” was a label for an institution that I did not wish to be a part of. I wouldn’t want to insist that others pretend that the status of my relationship was the same as theirs, when it obviously would not be, regardless of what word-games we played. Passing a law wouldn’t change the reality, it would only obscure it, and I’m not interested in that kind of thing.

 

[Betterave]

. It is only the latter kind of discrimination that is actually relevant in your syllogism and in our discussion of it. Can you see that? It’s not that the discrimination in this case is justified - it is simply not discrimination in the relevant sense.]

Apparently you didn’t notice this earlier because you’ve consistently ignored the point made in it in your subsequent comments. Since you seem to have trouble understanding on your own how the arguments here specifically address your argument, I’ll make it explicit.

Your premise two is false. It is based on a non sequitur. Here’s why:
You say, “Proposition 8 discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation (by allowing heterosexuals, but not homosexuals, to marry their partners).” Proposition 8 in fact ‘discriminates against’ homosexuals who want to marry their same-sex partners. But this is only in the trivial, merely statistical sense in which the NBA ‘discriminates against’ women. You have failed to notice that “‘discriminating against’ X” does not imply “discriminating on the basis of X-ness.” The NBA ‘discriminates against’ women; it does not discriminate against them on the basis of their being women. Prop 8 ‘discriminates against’ homosexuals who want to marry their same-sex partners; it does not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. The former kind of ‘discrimination’ is trivial and irrelevant to the issue of social justice.

 

[Betterave]

Of course, it’s easy to assert this.

It’s easy to beg the question and it’s easy to point out that someone is begging the question.

Actually, I haven’t committed that fallacy at all. Never did I infer from the fact that not all marriages have the fundamental purpose of procreation that procreation is the fundamental purpose of marriage. It is your claim that procreation is the fundamental purpose of marriage (sorry, but this just isn’t true for all marriages - public or otherwise).

Sorry, obviously I slipped up in writing this (I’m sorry, but to an alert reader who is paying attention to concepts and not just words I think this should have been obvious) - you were so quick in replying that you didn’t get my correction:

It does not follow from the fact that not all eating is for sustenance that sustenance is not the only fundamental purpose of eating. You repeatedly commit this non sequitur in your claims.

Oh “obviously?” Then please cite any legal authority for this requirement that before partnerships can be legally recognized as marriages, they must not be fundamentally alien to procreation.

The non sequitur implied by your remark here is: If no citation of legal authority, then I can simply ignore the reasons you have given.

Why is it false? Just because you said so?

No, it is false for self-evident biological reasons.

Btw, I haven’t claimed or assumed in my response that certain heterosexuals partnerships are as fundamentally alien to procreation as all same-sex partnerships. All I claimed was, by your logic, the following would be true.

1. Partnerships that are fundamentally alien to procreation should not be recognized as marriages.
2. Therefore, under current law, partnerships that are fundamentally alien to procreation (i.e. certain heterosexual partnerships) SHOULD NOT be recognized as marriages.

For the argument to be valid, it is not required that certain heterosexual partnerships be as fundamentally alien to procreation – it is only required that certain heterosexual partnerships are fundamentally alien to procreation. Again, given your logic, you should endorse (2). And while you’re free to endorse it, it certainly isn’t the law.

I addressed this later in my argument. Please don’t make assumptions about “my logic” before you’ve listened to it and tried to understand it.

It’s clear you are deliberately ignoring my questions. Here they are again: “What you want to claim is that, under current law, partnerships must meet the “minimal requirement of conformity to the fundamental purpose of marriage” before they can be recognized as marriages. But what is the “minimal requirement?” And what authority can you cite for this proposition (other than yourself)?”

First of all, you “obviously” haven’t addressed my first question, and as for the second, you “obviously” completely ignored it.

Both of those claims are false, obviously your snide commentary is unwarranted, and hopefully you’ll be able to see that if you actually take the time to carefully read what I post before assuming you know what it doesn’t/won’t contain. Please note that I am not making an argument from authority here (that is the weakest kind of argument and not the kind that I’m advancing).

 

[Betterave]

Ignoring my responses again, I see. What are your objections to my argument that prop 8 violates equal protection? Can you indicate the particular premise you dispute?

Done and done.

You need to open a logic textbook and familiarize yourself with the term “begging the question.”

I don’t know if I need to, but here goes: BTQ - The fallacy committed by an argument when its premises presuppose, directly or indirectly, the truth of its conclusion. (Critical Thinking, 5th edition, Hughes and Lavery, 2008)

My claim A: “no prima facie mommy-daddy pairing is fundamentally alien to procreation, in the relevant sense”
Implied: all male-female pairings can prima facie constitute mommy-daddy pairings, in the sense intended as relevant
Your claim B: “Some partnerships that are fundamentally alien to procreation should be recognized as marriages.”
Implied: certain male-female are not prima facie mommy-daddy pairings, i.e., not A
Your conclusion: therefore not A

Please list all the conditions that are jointly sufficient to yield a prima-facie “mommy-daddy pairing.”

Really? You need me to do that? First, you need a mommy-figure and a daddy-figure (to use the medical terminology, a male and a female). Second, they have to be willing and able (competent) to form a pairing.

Because you do not see a distinction between the two.

That’s news to me. Please explain.

“Obviously,” what you find “obvious” is obviously not obvious.

Typically what is obvious in itself is more or less obvious to particular individuals.

“Mommy-and-daddy” isn’t merely about procreation, but about child-rearing.

That’s correct.

It is certainly not obvious that the heterosexual couple in my example “reasonably” embodies the notion of “mommy-and-daddy.” (If you counter by saying that it is obvious, you are begging the question).

Actually no, replying to an assertion with a counter-assertion does not constitute begging the question. (I refer you to the definition of question-begging given above - apparently you’re the one who needs to open a logic text.) Maybe this will help you to see the obviousness of what I claimed:
“heterosexual couple” = “a man and a woman”
“mommy-and-daddy” = “a man and a woman”

Moreover, it is certainly not obvious that the heterosexual couple in my example “better” embodies that notion than the homosexual couple in my example. (If you counter by saying that it is obvious, you are begging the question)

Same comment on your erroneous claim about question-begging. And here’s how this one works:
“heterosexual couple” = “a man and a woman”
“mommy-and-daddy” = “a man and a woman”
“homosexual couple” NOT= “a man and a woman”
Therefore, etc. (If you have trouble filling this in, just say - I hope it will be obvious to you.)

Your conclusion just doesn’t follow. Your argument begs the question by assuming that the reason why homosexuals can’t marry has nothing to do with them being unfairly discriminated against, but this assumption is precisely what’s at issue.

No, I didn’t just assume this, I’ve explained why it is the case. Hopefully you can see this by now.

In other words, there could be reasons why homosexual couples can’t marry which have nothing to do with your so-called “requirement,” but you merely assume they don’t exist. Hence you beg the question.

There might be other such reasons, I think there are and I think some of them are good reasons, but I have not assumed they don’t exist, and their possible existence seems irrelevant to my argument. With due respect, you seem not to know what begging the question is. I’m happy to reconsider if you can explain what you mean here, but please refer to the definition of begging the question first.

If it is your contention that a couple is required to “embody the notion of mommy-and-daddy” – btw, would you phrase it like this in a court room? – before they can get married, please cite the relevant legal authority for this proposition.

Dealt with this already.

If this is your attempt to defend your analogy then it is quite the failure. In your analogy, you are comparing a law which only allows men to be sperm donors with prop 8. As I pointed out, women can’t be sperm donors but homosexual couples can marry. In your example, the law prevents women from doing something that can’t be done, as a matter of biological fact. But prop 8 does not prevent homosexuals from doing something (i.e. get married) that can’t be done, as a matter of biological fact or any fact – unlike women, it is possible for homosexuals to marry their partners.

Your assertion that “homosexual couples can marry” is simply begging the question.

Moreover, as I said above, you confuse procreation with child-rearing because you can’t see the distinction between the two. (Btw, is “obvious” your new favorite word? Obvious it is).

Again this claim? Please explain it. (My favorite new word… I think that would be placitum, as in the phrase nomina sunt ad placitum.)

Nothing you wrote disputes what I said: Not only does prop 8 prevent homosexuals (but not heterosexuals) from being able to marry their partners, that is its intended purpose - the reason for which it was enacted.

Dealt with this already.

It is an impossible one, I’m afraid, because you have not bothered to take up the challenge.

No comment.

 

[captainmike]

No I am categorically dismissing everything after your mention of Genesis 1:27 as it has no place in a discussion of secular legal matters. Please base your arguments on objective data points and the law.

no, thanks. this is a catholic message board, and if i want to talk about God, I will do so. now, answer my question about whether a genderless world is the gay marriage proponent’s utopia.

 

[captainmike]

I am saying that the arguments for “traditional” marriage based on historicity and pragmatic considerations are unsound. Marriage had little to do with creating families and more about keeping wealth within a group and resolving conflicts. Furthermore, biblically speaking, marriage was hardly ever “one man, one woman” as polygyny was quite common.Lastly, no one needs to have one’s parents married to have a “mommy and a daddy” so we can have children and build families without being married. Indeed, there is no legal requirement that one be married to have children, nor is there any legal requirement that in order to be married, one has to be able to or desire to reproduce with their partner.

everything you say here is irrelevant. whether or not the parents of a child are married, it is far better for a child to be raised by a mom and a dad than by two moms. there are indeed differences between the male and female of the species, and it is good for a child to have a close relationship with one of each.

i say again: gay marriage makes sense only in a genderless world–i.e., in a world in which there is no male and female and no masculine and feminine. but that’s not the world that God created.

 

[Betterave]

I am saying that the arguments for “traditional” marriage based on historicity and pragmatic considerations are unsound. Marriage had little to do with creating families and more about keeping wealth within a group and resolving conflicts.

This is an interesting claim. What makes you think it’s true? There was plenty of homosexuality in the past, but never homo-marriage. What do you make of that, given that you believe that marriage was just about keeping wealth within a group and resolving conflicts? Do you think you might be putting the cart before the horse here?

Furthermore, biblically speaking, marriage was hardly ever “one man, one woman” as polygyny was quite common.

That’s not true, but why do you think it’s relevant?

Lastly, no one needs to have one’s parents married to have a “mommy and a daddy” so we can have children and build families without being married. Indeed, there is no legal requirement that one be married to have children, nor is there any legal requirement that in order to be married, one has to be able to or desire to reproduce with their partner.

That’s correct in a sense, but historically-speaking the act of having children is hardly separable from marriage, the two have always been tightly linked and always will be. Do you deny that? And the point, which you haven’t addressed here, is that marriage is good for children and thus for society, not that it’s necessary.

 

[secular_freedom]

I want to quickly address this point before getting back to work o): There are no women in the NBA. This is because it is, and is intended to be, an elite basketball league and no women are able to play at this level.

Your claim that “no women are able to play at this level” is not only a textbook example of hasty generalization, but false. For your claim to be true, it would have to be true that no women are able to play on par with any player in the NBA. In fact, your claim implies that the best WNBA player (or best female player in the WORLD) is much worse than the worst NBA player! This is just “obvious,” right?

Therefore it is also foreseen and intended that all women will be excluded from playing in the NBA.

So in other words, no woman basketball player can ever play at the NBA level, according to you. Other than this “fact” being “obvious,” what evidence do you have for this assertion?

Nonetheless it is nonsense to say that the NBA discriminates against women as such. It discriminates against women, in a merely incidental and statistical sense, but not against women as such.

It is not nonsense at all; women are not incidentally prevented from playing in the NBA, but intentionally prevented from playing in the NBA (as you admitted above).
How you can think this difference in treatment is discrimination merely in the “incidental and statistical sense” is beyond me.If I intentionally exclude skunks from my house, then I discriminate against such creatures intentionally, not incidentally in a statistical sense.

It is only the latter kind of discrimination that is actually relevant in your syllogism and in our discussion of it. Can you see that? It’s not that the discrimination in this case is justified - it is simply not discrimination in the relevant sense.]

You need to clear up the distinction between “relevant discrimination” and “irrelevant discrimination” (because it just ain’t working,and it’s certainly not obvious).

Apparently you didn’t notice this earlier because you’ve consistently ignored the point made in it in your subsequent comments. Since you seem to have trouble understanding on your own how the arguments here specifically address your argument, I’ll make it explicit.

Your premise two is false. It is based on a non sequitur. Here’s why:
You say, “Proposition 8 discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation (by allowing heterosexuals, but not homosexuals, to marry their partners).” Proposition 8 in fact ‘discriminates against’ homosexuals who want to marry their same-sex partners. But this is only in the trivial, merely statistical sense in which the NBA ‘discriminates against’ women. You have failed to notice that “‘discriminating against’ X” does not imply “discriminating on the basis of X-ness.” The NBA ‘discriminates against’ women; it does not discriminate against them on the basis of their being women. Prop 8 ‘discriminates against’ homosexuals who want to marry their same-sex partners; it does not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. The former kind of ‘discrimination’ is trivial and irrelevant to the issue of social justice.

First of all, to say that the NBA “discriminates against” women is to say that the NBA “discriminates on the basis of their being women.” If a store owner “discriminates against” Mexicans (say, but not allowing any Mexican to buy milk there), then he “discriminates against them on the basis of their being Mexican.”

Second, your NBA analogy just doesn’t work, as explained above.

Third, prop 8 does not discriminate against homosexuals in a “trivial, merely statistical sense.” What do you mean by “trivial?” How is the discrimination trivial and “merely” statistical when it’s virtually 100%? For gay couples who wish to have their wedding day, the discrimination surely isn’t trivial!

 

[secular_freedom]

It’s easy to beg the question and it’s easy to point out that someone is begging the question.

Well, it’s easy to assert that someone is begging the question, I’ll give you that. As for pointing it out, it’s not so easy for those who don’t even try.

Sorry, obviously I slipped up in writing this (I’m sorry, but to an alert reader who is paying attention to concepts and not just words I think this should have been obvious) - you were so quick in replying that you didn’t get my correction:

It does not follow from the fact that not all eating is for sustenance that sustenance is not the only fundamental purpose of eating. You repeatedly commit this non sequitur in your claims.

Since I never discussed eating in this thread, no I haven’t committed this non sequitur. If you want to show the fallacy, show it directly - not through poorly constructed analogies.

The non sequitur implied by your remark here is: If no citation of legal authority, then I can simply ignore the reasons you have given.

Actually, it’s not a non sequitur at all! Your contention is that before partnerships can be legally recognized as marriages, it is a requirement they must not be fundamentally alien to procreation. In other words, it is your clam that this requirement can be found in law (otherwise, it would not be a requirement in the relevant, legal sense). Hence, it is your burden to cite the legal authority for your proposition. To claim that “the law requires X,” you need to produce legal authority that shows this.

So I’ll ask again: what legal authority can you cite for this requirement that before partnerships can be legally recognized as marriages, they must not be fundamentally alien to procreation?

No, it is false for self-evident biological reasons.

It’s not self-evident at all. Please explain those biological reasons. Please explain how a heterosexual partnership involving two 90-year old individuals, where one had a complete hysterectomy and the other is sterile, is not as fundamentally alien to procreation as a homosexual partnership.

I addressed this later in my argument. Please don’t make assumptions about “my logic” before you’ve listened to it and tried to understand it.

I stand by what I said. Here is the Argument again:

1. Partnerships that are fundamentally alien to procreation should not be recognized as marriages.
2. Therefore, under current law, partnerships that are fundamentally alien to procreation (i.e. certain heterosexual partnerships) SHOULD NOT be recognized as marriages.

For the argument to be valid, it is not required that certain heterosexual partnerships be as fundamentally alien to procreation – it is only required that certain heterosexual partnerships ***are ***fundamentally alien to procreation. Again, given your logic, you should endorse (2). And while you’re free to endorse it, it certainly isn’t the law.

The only way you can hold to (1) and deny (2) is to hold that no heterosexual partnerships can ever be fundamentally alien to procreation. Is the the move you want to make?

Both of those claims are false, obviously your snide commentary is unwarranted, and hopefully you’ll be able to see that if you actually take the time to carefully read what I post before assuming you know what it doesn’t/won’t contain. Please note that I am not making an argument from authority here (that is the weakest kind of argument and not the kind that I’m advancing).

Both of those claims are not false. I repeat: “What you want to claim is that, under current law, partnerships must meet the “minimal requirement of conformity to the fundamental purpose of marriage” before they can be recognized as marriages. But what is the “minimal requirement?” And what authority can you cite for this proposition (other than yourself)?”

As for making an argument from authority, you need to do this if you’re going to claim that under “current law,” partnerships must meet the minimal requirement of conformity to the fundamental purpose of marriage before they can be recognized as marriages.

 

[secular_freedom]

I don’t know if I need to, but here goes: BTQ - The fallacy committed by an argument when its premises presuppose, directly or indirectly, the truth of its conclusion. (Critical Thinking, 5th edition, Hughes and Lavery, 2008)

Good! Please keep this understanding in mind when you use the phrase.

My claim A: “no prima facie mommy-daddy pairing is fundamentally alien to procreation, in the relevant sense”
Implied: all male-female pairings can prima facie constitute mommy-daddy pairings, in the sense intended as relevant

1. In what sense can a pairing be fundamentally alien to procreation? One interpretation is that a pairing is fundamentally alien to procreation if it is biologically impossible for that pairing to procreate. But if this is what you mean by “fundamentally alien,” then your “implication” doesn’t follow, since there are male-female pairings (as well as “mommy-daddy pairings”) that cannot procreate. So what do you mean by “fundamentally alien to procreation?”
2. And what is the “sense intended as relevant?” What “sense” is that? Furthermore, please explain the work that “prima facie” is doing. Are you leaving open the room that some male-female pairings can’t constitute mommy-daddy pairings?
3. Please explain the concept of a “mommy-daddy pairing.” I assume the concept conveys something more than the concept of a “male-female pairing,” and entails concepts like “being a mother” and “being a father.” For your “implication” to follow, in order for a “male-female pairing” to prima facie constitute a “mommy-daddy pairing,” then the individuals in the pair must prima facie be capable of “being a mother” and “being a father.” But what evidence do you have that all individuals in “male-female” pairings are prima facie capable of “being a mother” and “being a father?”

Your claim B: “Some partnerships that are fundamentally alien to procreation should be recognized as marriages.”
Implied: certain male-female are not prima facie mommy-daddy pairings, i.e., not A
Your conclusion: therefore not A

Actually, the implication doesn’t follow – it all depends on what you mean by “fundamentally alien to procreation.” A male-female pair can be “fundamentally alien to procreation” while being a prima facie mommy-daddy pairing (think parents who can’t have kids but adopt).

Really? You need me to do that?

Yes, I do. Can you do it? Please list all the conditions that are jointly sufficient to yield a prima-facie “mommy-daddy pairing.”

First, you need a mommy-figure and a daddy-figure (to use the medical terminology, a male and a female). Second, they have to be willing and able (competent) to form a pairing.

That’s it? All you’re describing is a heterosexual couple willing and able to have sex. Doesn’t sound like a prima facie “mommy-daddy pairing” to me.

Actually no, replying to an assertion with a counter-assertion does not constitute begging the question.

In your case it does. You claimed that a heterosexual couple can "reasonably’ be said to embody the notion of “mommy-and-daddy” even when: a) they don’t have kids; b) they don’t want/can’t have kids; and c) they would make poor (perhaps abusive) parents even if they did have kids. You also claimed that a homosexual couple who: a) has kids, and b) is doing a great job in raising them, would not better embody the notion of “mommy-and-daddy” than the previous heterosexual couple. Furthermore, you claimed these were “obvious.” Sorry, but they’re not.

Repeating that your contentions are “obvious” is not to argue for them, but to simply repeat what you need to prove.

(I refer you to the definition of question-begging given above - apparently you’re the one who needs to open a logic text.) Maybe this will help you to see the obviousness of what I claimed:
“heterosexual couple” = “a man and a woman”
“mommy-and-daddy” = “a man and a woman”

Nope, it doesn’t. Do try again though.

Same comment on your erroneous claim about question-begging. And here’s how this one works:
“heterosexual couple” = “a man and a woman”
“mommy-and-daddy” = “a man and a woman”
“homosexual couple” NOT= “a man and a woman”
Therefore, etc. (If you have trouble filling this in, just say - I hope it will be obvious to you.)

If it’s so obvious to you, then you should have no problem laying it out instead of claiming, ad nauseum, how obvious it is.

No, I didn’t just assume this, I’ve explained why it is the case. Hopefully you can see this by now.

Sorry, but facts are facts – you did just assume it.

 

[secular_freedom]

There might be other such reasons, I think there are and I think some of them are good reasons, but I have not assumed they don’t exist, and their possible existence seems irrelevant to my argument. With due respect, you seem not to know what begging the question is. I’m happy to reconsider if you can explain what you mean here, but please refer to the definition of begging the question first.

It has been your contention that the reason why same-sex couples can’t marry is because there is a requirement that under current law, a couple must “embody the notion of mommy-and-daddy” before they can get married. Other than merely asserting that this is the case, you have not actually argued that there is this requirement under current law. Hence by merely repeating that it exists, you beg the question.

Dealt with this already.

Nope.

Your assertion that “homosexual couples can marry” is simply begging the question.

It is NOT begging the question. Homosexual couples can marry in the sense that, if the state allows them to, they can do it. In your example, if the state allows women to be sperm donors, they still can’t do it.

Again this claim? Please explain it. (My favorite new word… I think that would be placitum, as in the phrase nomina sunt ad placitum.)

Yep, again. Previously, you claimed that a heterosexual couple can "reasonably’ be said to embody the notion of “mommy-and-daddy” even when: a) they don’t have kids; b) they don’t want/can’t have kids; and c) they would make poor (perhaps abusive) parents even if they did have kids. How? Because, according to you, “Obviously by the fact he is a man and she is a woman, and that procreation is obviously based on union of man and woman.”

So, according to you, a heterosexual couple who can’t/doesn’t want to procreate can “reasonably” be said to embody the notion of “mommy-and-daddy” because one is a man and one is a woman…and er…yeah, your answer doesn’t make any sense to me. You explain! Please also explain your standard of “reasonableness.”

Dealt with this already.

Not at all.