Total Posts:76|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Proof Against Same-Sex Marriage

jeremtaylor
Posts: 35
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2009 2:50:31 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
I have written a proof that shows that same-sex marriage is wrong using Kant's formula for Categorical Imperative. This is a simplified version. First, marriage is an agreement not to engage in sexual intercourse with any member of the opposite gender. Secondly, all human beings have a free will and are rational. If you believe that it is rational for you to do something, it must be rational for all human beings to do it as well. So we use Kant's formula for Categorical Imperative, which states that as a rational being, you will "act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law." Now suppose the maxim "I will enact same-sex marriage." Now universalize this maxim. When this maxim is universalized regardless of time and space, it is clear that humans would not exist. Humans are necessary for marriage. So, it would be irrational to suppose the maxim "I will enact same-sex marriage." Now, through conjunction, you get you get ‘it is rational to enact same-sex marriage AND it is irrational to enact same-sex marriage.' This is a contradiction. Through modus tollens, we find that the original supposition (it is rational to enact same sex marriage) must be false. So, as Kant would say, a perfectly rational human being would not enact same-sex marriage. In other words, same-sex marriage is wrong.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2009 3:06:59 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Lol, I'll wait for Ragnar's essay on why Kant is retarded. Then, the whole idea is in shambles.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
TomPenn
Posts: 21
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2009 3:25:34 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/22/2009 2:50:31 PM, jeremtaylor wrote:
I have written a proof that shows that same-sex marriage is wrong using Kant's formula for Categorical Imperative. This is a simplified version. First, marriage is an agreement not to engage in sexual intercourse with any member of the opposite gender. Secondly, all human beings have a free will and are rational. If you believe that it is rational for you to do something, it must be rational for all human beings to do it as well. So we use Kant's formula for Categorical Imperative, which states that as a rational being, you will "act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law." Now suppose the maxim "I will enact same-sex marriage." Now universalize this maxim. When this maxim is universalized regardless of time and space, it is clear that humans would not exist. Humans are necessary for marriage. So, it would be irrational to suppose the maxim "I will enact same-sex marriage." Now, through conjunction, you get you get ‘it is rational to enact same-sex marriage AND it is irrational to enact same-sex marriage.' This is a contradiction. Through modus tollens, we find that the original supposition (it is rational to enact same sex marriage) must be false. So, as Kant would say, a perfectly rational human being would not enact same-sex marriage. In other words, same-sex marriage is wrong.

1) That's a very limited definition of what marriage is. Most would think of it more as a declaration of devotion to another, and in today's society its most important role in any practical sense is its role in personal finances.

2) In today's overpopulated world, wouldn't the most logical thing be to not reproduce? In addition, humans are rational actors. As rational actors, we seek to fulfill our desires. For a homosexual, it is only logical to have a sexual relationship with someone of the same sex, as that is the only kind of sexual relationship which could possibly satiate that person's sexual desires.

3) Let's instead universalize the principle that people would only marry those they are sexually attracted to. In that sense, 89-96(ish) percent of the married population would have the potential to reproduce. Even with the ignored factor of artificial insemination, this would surely help curb the population crisis we currently face. However, the vast majority would continue to reproduce, ensuring the continuation of humanity - at least as far as reproduction is concerned.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2009 3:30:32 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
His idea hinges on humans being rational. Clearly, they aren't, because emotional influences rarely make us "rational." So this entire idea is absolutely pointless when applied to humans that have emotional capacity.
untitled_entity
Posts: 416
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2009 3:35:54 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/22/2009 3:30:32 PM, Volkov wrote:
His idea hinges on humans being rational. Clearly, they aren't, because emotional influences rarely make us "rational." So this entire idea is absolutely pointless when applied to humans that have emotional capacity.

So let's just deny same - sex marriage to the emotionally incapable.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2009 3:37:55 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/22/2009 3:35:54 PM, untitled_entity wrote:
At 7/22/2009 3:30:32 PM, Volkov wrote:
His idea hinges on humans being rational. Clearly, they aren't, because emotional influences rarely make us "rational." So this entire idea is absolutely pointless when applied to humans that have emotional capacity.

So let's just deny same - sex marriage to the emotionally incapable.

That would be silly, as it would be denying their freedom. No reason to deny it to them.

Now, whether or not they would actually take that freedom, is what is in question.

But, just because they refuse, don't or can't exercise a freedom, doesn't mean we deny it to them.
untitled_entity
Posts: 416
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2009 3:40:05 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/22/2009 3:37:55 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 7/22/2009 3:35:54 PM, untitled_entity wrote:
At 7/22/2009 3:30:32 PM, Volkov wrote:
His idea hinges on humans being rational. Clearly, they aren't, because emotional influences rarely make us "rational." So this entire idea is absolutely pointless when applied to humans that have emotional capacity.

So let's just deny same - sex marriage to the emotionally incapable.

That would be silly, as it would be denying their freedom. No reason to deny it to them.

Now, whether or not they would actually take that freedom, is what is in question.

But, just because they refuse, don't or can't exercise a freedom, doesn't mean we deny it to them.

I know. I was being facetious...
TomPenn
Posts: 21
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2009 3:40:33 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/22/2009 3:30:32 PM, Volkov wrote:
His idea hinges on humans being rational. Clearly, they aren't, because emotional influences rarely make us "rational." So this entire idea is absolutely pointless when applied to humans that have emotional capacity.

Humans can act rationally based on their emotions. If someone angers me, I will feel the need to respond, and so to defend my honour I may do the rational thing, which would make me again content, and would maintain my self-respect and the respect of society - I would remove my glove, slap him across the face, and challenge him to a duel.

The argument that people have emotions, and are therefore irrational only works in the most shallow sense, and is intellectually bankrupt. Emotions are merely motivators, and do not define our actions. I may not feel like taking an exam, but it is in my best interest logically to study, go to class, and take it. Humanity is capable of introspection and abstract thought - that is what separates us from other animals. The basic assumption that humans are rational actors, that all follows from Descartes' declaration that "I think, therefore I am," is the basis for all human philosophical thought. You've made me 'facepalm', as it were.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2009 3:43:42 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/22/2009 3:40:05 PM, untitled_entity wrote:
I know. I was being facetious...

My apologies. It is a little difficult to glean someone's meaning over the internet.

Though, it brings up an interesting point anyways. Does the OP mean that same-sex marriage can be denied through rationality, or that homosexuality can be denied as non-rational
ournamestoolong
Posts: 1,059
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2009 3:45:06 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/22/2009 2:50:31 PM, jeremtaylor wrote:
I have written a proof that shows that same-sex marriage is wrong using Kant's formula for Categorical Imperative. This is a simplified version.

Ok

"First, marriage is an agreement not to engage in sexual intercourse with any member of the opposite gender."

Explain? If two heterosexual people are married, they are obviously going to have sex with the opposite gender (i.e. each other). I also dispute your definition, as if your are talking about making something illegal, you should use the LEGAL definition.

"Secondly, all human beings have a free will and are rational."

Many humans are very, very, very irrational. (i.e. Hitler)

"If you believe that it is rational for you to do something, it must be rational for all human beings to do it as well."

Not necessarily. if it is rational for me to go to my bus stop at 6:32 a.m. in order to catch the bus to school, that does no make it rational for all the kids at my school to go to my buss stop at 6:32 A.M. (Not all of them ride my bus, an it would be very crowded.)

"So we use Kant's formula for Categorical Imperative, which states that as a rational being, you will "act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law."

See above, the situation may work for me, but it will not work as a universal law.

"Now suppose the maxim "I will enact same-sex marriage."

Kay

"Now universalize this maxim. When this maxim is universalized regardless of time and space, it is clear that humans would not exist."

HIGHLY ideological, not everyone will turn gay.

"Humans are necessary for marriage."

I agree

"So, it would be irrational to suppose the maxim "I will enact same-sex marriage." Now, through conjunction, you get you get ‘it is rational to enact same-sex marriage AND it is irrational to enact same-sex marriage.' This is a contradiction. Through modus tollens, we find that the original supposition (it is rational to enact same sex marriage) must be false. So, as Kant would say, a perfectly rational human being would not enact same-sex marriage."

See above

"In other words, same-sex marriage is wrong."

That assumes that irrational = wrong. In it self, marriage is irrational. Staying with one partner limits you to very few offspring (once every 9 months). However, if you divide and conquer (as I would say) you can plant your seed many more times, increasing the possibility of a evolutionary advantage.
I'll get by with a little help from my friends.

Ournamestoolong

Secretary of Commerce

Destroy talking ads!
untitled_entity
Posts: 416
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2009 3:49:50 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/22/2009 3:43:42 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 7/22/2009 3:40:05 PM, untitled_entity wrote:
I know. I was being facetious...

My apologies. It is a little difficult to glean someone's meaning over the internet.

Though, it brings up an interesting point anyways. Does the OP mean that same-sex marriage can be denied through rationality, or that homosexuality can be denied as non-rational

I know, its hard to be understood sometimes.

Valid point. I've been wondering the same thing for a while.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2009 3:55:37 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/22/2009 3:40:33 PM, TomPenn wrote:
Humans can act rationally based on their emotions. If someone angers me, I will feel the need to respond, and so to defend my honour I may do the rational thing, which would make me again content, and would maintain my self-respect and the respect of society - I would remove my glove, slap him across the face, and challenge him to a duel.

Lol? That isn't the rational course of action. The rational course of action would take in the size of the person versus your size, as well whether or not it would be worthy to fight him based on several biological positives/negatives (ie., "if I fight him and win, how much opportunity will I have to reproduce after?"), etc.

Emotion causes us to act according to what we feel. Rationality causes us to act according to the positives and negatives of the situation and the outcome. Your example, was an emotional

The argument that people have emotions, and are therefore irrational only works in the most shallow sense, and is intellectually bankrupt. Emotions are merely motivators, and do not define our actions.

They are "motivators" yet they don't "define" our actions? That doesn't make sense.

Emotions motivate us to make a certain decision in response to a situation. If that doesn't "define" our actions, then I'm not sure what does.

I may not feel like taking an exam, but it is in my best interest logically to study, go to class, and take it.

You'll have to explain that example to the thousands of students that don't take the exam.

Humanity is capable of introspection and abstract thought - that is what separates us from other animals.

Of course, but our introspection and thought is always clouded and influence by the biases that are our emotions.

No rational thought is made without consideration of what our emotional side says; no emotional thought is made without consideration of what our rational side says.

The basic assumption that humans are rational actors, that all follows from Descartes' declaration that "I think, therefore I am," is the basis for all human philosophical thought. You've made me 'facepalm', as it were.

I never said humans aren't rational actors. I said they are also emotional actors. Get it right.
jeremtaylor
Posts: 35
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2009 3:59:51 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/22/2009 3:25:34 PM, TomPenn wrote:

1) That's a very limited definition of what marriage is. Most would think of it more as a declaration of devotion to another, and in today's society its most important role in any practical sense is its role in personal finances.

I know that this particular definition is limited, but I didn't want to write out a comprehensive definition because most of the definition would be irrelevant. I only pointed out the element of marriage that is relevant.

2) In today's overpopulated world, wouldn't the most logical thing be to not reproduce? In addition, humans are rational actors. As rational actors, we seek to fulfill our desires. For a homosexual, it is only logical to have a sexual relationship with someone of the same sex, as that is the only kind of sexual relationship which could possibly satiate that person's sexual desires.


You can't make an argument about the way things should be based on the way things are. If we could derive the way things should be based on how they are, I could argue that as it is, same-sex marriage is illegal in most states, so same-sex marriage should remain illegal.

3) Let's instead universalize the principle that people would only marry those they are sexually attracted to.


This would mean allowing pedophilia.
jeremtaylor
Posts: 35
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2009 4:02:49 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/22/2009 3:30:32 PM, Volkov wrote:
His idea hinges on humans being rational. Clearly, they aren't, because emotional influences rarely make us "rational." So this entire idea is absolutely pointless when applied to humans that have emotional capacity.

While humans are emotional, they are also rational. For example, most people have a natural inclination to not share, yet we learn that we should resist this natural inclination and share. This is an example of how rationality overcomes emotion.

Also, if we based our arguments on emotion, it would be perfectly valid to argue: "same-sex couples are icky, so I'm going to vote against referendums like Prop 8." I don't think this is a sound argument, just as I don't think that your argument is sound.
TomPenn
Posts: 21
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2009 4:06:00 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/22/2009 3:59:51 PM, jeremtaylor wrote:
At 7/22/2009 3:25:34 PM, TomPenn wrote:

1) That's a very limited definition of what marriage is. Most would think of it more as a declaration of devotion to another, and in today's society its most important role in any practical sense is its role in personal finances.

I know that this particular definition is limited, but I didn't want to write out a comprehensive definition because most of the definition would be irrelevant. I only pointed out the element of marriage that is relevant.
No, you pointed out the part that would fit with your argument. You made the claim that if that one element of marriage is removed, then it becomes entirely invalid. You must note the other elements, which remain valid.

2) In today's overpopulated world, wouldn't the most logical thing be to not reproduce? In addition, humans are rational actors. As rational actors, we seek to fulfill our desires. For a homosexual, it is only logical to have a sexual relationship with someone of the same sex, as that is the only kind of sexual relationship which could possibly satiate that person's sexual desires.


You can't make an argument about the way things should be based on the way things are. If we could derive the way things should be based on how they are, I could argue that as it is, same-sex marriage is illegal in most states, so same-sex marriage should remain illegal.
My predictions are a response to yours. They are no less valid, and to undermine my argument, you would first have to go against your own. Also note the places in the world where gay marriage is legal.

3) Let's instead universalize the principle that people would only marry those they are sexually attracted to.


This would mean allowing pedophilia.
No, because that would be against the child's will.
jeremtaylor
Posts: 35
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2009 4:06:26 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/22/2009 3:43:42 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 7/22/2009 3:40:05 PM, untitled_entity wrote:
I know. I was being facetious...
Though, it brings up an interesting point anyways. Does the OP mean that same-sex marriage can be denied through rationality, or that homosexuality can be denied as non-rational

I am saying that same-sex marriage is irrational and wrong. So, because it is wrong, it should not be legal.
TomPenn
Posts: 21
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2009 4:12:45 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/22/2009 3:55:37 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 7/22/2009 3:40:33 PM, TomPenn wrote:
Humans can act rationally based on their emotions. If someone angers me, I will feel the need to respond, and so to defend my honour I may do the rational thing, which would make me again content, and would maintain my self-respect and the respect of society - I would remove my glove, slap him across the face, and challenge him to a duel.

Lol? That isn't the rational course of action. The rational course of action would take in the size of the person versus your size, as well whether or not it would be worthy to fight him based on several biological positives/negatives (ie., "if I fight him and win, how much opportunity will I have to reproduce after?"), etc.

That in no way undermines my point. It's just an elaboration. Thanks for working on my point further for me.
Emotion causes us to act according to what we feel. Rationality causes us to act according to the positives and negatives of the situation and the outcome. Your example, was an emotional

The argument that people have emotions, and are therefore irrational only works in the most shallow sense, and is intellectually bankrupt. Emotions are merely motivators, and do not define our actions.

They are "motivators" yet they don't "define" our actions? That doesn't make sense.

Emotions motivate us to make a certain decision in response to a situation. If that doesn't "define" our actions, then I'm not sure what does.

The motives don't define the methods.
I may not feel like taking an exam, but it is in my best interest logically to study, go to class, and take it.

You'll have to explain that example to the thousands of students that don't take the exam.

You'll have to explain your rebuttal to those who do choose to take it. The world works in shades of grey. People are not completely impulsive - reason almost always plays a role.
Humanity is capable of introspection and abstract thought - that is what separates us from other animals.

Of course, but our introspection and thought is always clouded and influence by the biases that are our emotions.

That doesn't remove the logic that we derive from the situations we are presented with, no matter how skewed that logic is.
No rational thought is made without consideration of what our emotional side says; no emotional thought is made without consideration of what our rational side says.

Right - so you admit that logic plays a crucial role.
The basic assumption that humans are rational actors, that all follows from Descartes' declaration that "I think, therefore I am," is the basis for all human philosophical thought. You've made me 'facepalm', as it were.

I never said humans aren't rational actors. I said they are also emotional actors. Get it right.
Actually, you did. You attempted to make the point that logical considerations would be invalid because of the role of emotions on the psyche, and their influence on our actions. You cannot invalidate the role of logic if you admit its presence.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2009 4:14:18 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
marriage is an agreement not to engage in sexual intercourse with any member of the opposite gender

good one. Sell it to a comedian :).

Frankly, the problem with Kant is not the categorical imperative as such (which can't take you anywhere, and isn't really much of an imperative at all, it just tells you what stupid things not to do, although it fails to reason out why and therefore can be taken out of useful context). So my issues with Kant aren't really relevant here.

In any case, the idea is "act only on the maxim that you would will to be universalized." Not "Act only in such a manner that that specific action tells you everything you need to know about the maxim." Same-sex marriage rarely if ever occurs according to the maxim "Thou shalt marry someone of the opposite sex." It usually occurs on some other principle. "Marrying only those sexually attracted to" is thus valid. Incidentally, allowing pedophilia (which would instead follow from "Marry ALL those on is sexually attracted to," not "only," if you know English), is not a problem as far as I'm concerned if the child consents :).
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
jeremtaylor
Posts: 35
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2009 4:17:23 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/22/2009 3:45:06 PM, ournamestoolong wrote:
At 7/22/2009 2:50:31 PM, jeremtaylor wrote:
I have written a proof that shows that same-sex marriage is wrong using Kant's formula for Categorical Imperative. This is a simplified version.

Ok

"First, marriage is an agreement not to engage in sexual intercourse with any member of the opposite gender."

Explain? If two heterosexual people are married, they are obviously going to have sex with the opposite gender (i.e. each other). I also dispute your definition, as if your are talking about making something illegal, you should use the LEGAL definition.

I was simplifying the definition and only pointing out one aspect of it because I didn't want to include irrelevant information. I'm saying that when people get married, they agree to be faithful to each other. This implies that they will not participate in sexual activity with anyone else. So if they are married to a person of their own gender, they agree to not participate in sexual activity with a member of the opposite gender.
"Secondly, all human beings have a free will and are rational."

Many humans are very, very, very irrational. (i.e. Hitler)

Certainly there are human beings who have not acted rationally or thought through everything rationally. But humans have a strong inclination towards rationality. Even Hitler would have followed what Kant called the Hypothetical Imperative, if he hadn't he wouldn't have been able to do as much harm as he did. The Hypothetical Imperative states that if you will a certain end, you must complete the steps necessary for that end. I.e. if you want to pick up a glass of water, you must move your hand.
Not necessarily. if it is rational for me to go to my bus stop at 6:32 a.m. in order to catch the bus to school, that does no make it rational for all the kids at my school to go to my buss stop at 6:32 A.M. (Not all of them ride my bus, an it would be very crowded.)

That's an excellent example of the Hypothetical Imperative. Your desire to catch a bus to go to school is Hypothetical, not Categorical.
"Now universalize this maxim. When this maxim is universalized regardless of time and space, it is clear that humans would not exist."

HIGHLY ideological, not everyone will turn gay.
I'm saying you should universalize the condition of homosexuality, I'm saying you should universalize the maxim "I will enact same-sex marriage."
"In other words, same-sex marriage is wrong."

That assumes that irrational = wrong. In it self, marriage is irrational. Staying with one partner limits you to very few offspring (once every 9 months). However, if you divide and conquer (as I would say) you can plant your seed many more times, increasing the possibility of a evolutionary advantage.
Most psychologists and philosophers agree that humans use the dialectic method when reasoning and deciding on what they SHOULD do.
untitled_entity
Posts: 416
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2009 4:17:50 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/22/2009 4:06:26 PM, jeremtaylor wrote:
At 7/22/2009 3:43:42 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 7/22/2009 3:40:05 PM, untitled_entity wrote:
I know. I was being facetious...
Though, it brings up an interesting point anyways. Does the OP mean that same-sex marriage can be denied through rationality, or that homosexuality can be denied as non-rational

I am saying that same-sex marriage is irrational and wrong. So, because it is wrong, it should not be legal.

Lots of things are "irrational and wrong" yet still legal.
iamadragon
Posts: 157
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2009 4:19:03 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Your argument sucks, and you suck for even trying to pass it off.

Before anyone criticizes me for not addressing the argument: it's not worth my time, and everyone else has already shown why it's garbage.
jeremtaylor
Posts: 35
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2009 4:29:44 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/22/2009 4:06:00 PM, TomPenn wrote:
I know that this particular definition is limited, but I didn't want to write out a comprehensive definition because most of the definition would be irrelevant. I only pointed out the element of marriage that is relevant.
No, you pointed out the part that would fit with your argument. You made the claim that if that one element of marriage is removed, then it becomes entirely invalid. You must note the other elements, which remain valid.

When two people get married, do either of them not agree to remain faithful?

You can't make an argument about the way things should be based on the way things are. If we could derive the way things should be based on how they are, I could argue that as it is, same-sex marriage is illegal in most states, so same-sex marriage should remain illegal.
My predictions are a response to yours. They are no less valid, and to undermine my argument, you would first have to go against your own. Also note the places in the world where gay marriage is legal.

My argument isn't based on the way things are, it is a deductive argument. My argument is true by definition and rationality, not experience.

3) Let's instead universalize the principle that people would only marry those they are sexually attracted to.


This would mean allowing pedophilia.
No, because that would be against the child's will.

Well, that changes your argument. Now your argument would be something like "people should only marry those that they are sexually attracted to as long as it doesn't violate either person's will."
The fact that this doesn't yield a contradiction doesn't mean that people should follow this view. The formula for Categorical Imperative is only useful for pointing out things that we should NOT do. This is because modus tollens proves that arguments are irrational through negation.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2009 4:49:44 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/22/2009 4:29:44 PM, jeremtaylor wrote:
When two people get married, do either of them not agree to remain faithful?

That is the common case, but have you never heard of "open marriages," "swingers," and all of that? It clearly isn't limited to just remaining faithful, in the sexual term at least.

My argument isn't based on the way things are, it is a deductive argument. My argument is true by definition and rationality, not experience.

Experience is key in any truly considered argument concerning the way humans run their lives, and why.

I also want you to explain why homosexuality is wrong, and not through this moot argument of "rationality."
TomPenn
Posts: 21
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2009 6:07:38 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/22/2009 4:29:44 PM, jeremtaylor wrote:
At 7/22/2009 4:06:00 PM, TomPenn wrote:
I know that this particular definition is limited, but I didn't want to write out a comprehensive definition because most of the definition would be irrelevant. I only pointed out the element of marriage that is relevant.
No, you pointed out the part that would fit with your argument. You made the claim that if that one element of marriage is removed, then it becomes entirely invalid. You must note the other elements, which remain valid.

When two people get married, do either of them not agree to remain faithful?

No, but that's only one element of marriage. Now you're just asking me to repeat myself. I already admitted the validity of that element of marriage, but there are many other components, as I've already stated.
You can't make an argument about the way things should be based on the way things are. If we could derive the way things should be based on how they are, I could argue that as it is, same-sex marriage is illegal in most states, so same-sex marriage should remain illegal.
My predictions are a response to yours. They are no less valid, and to undermine my argument, you would first have to go against your own. Also note the places in the world where gay marriage is legal.

My argument isn't based on the way things are, it is a deductive argument. My argument is true by definition and rationality, not experience.

Now you're contradicting yourself.
3) Let's instead universalize the principle that people would only marry those they are sexually attracted to.


This would mean allowing pedophilia.
No, because that would be against the child's will.

Well, that changes your argument. Now your argument would be something like "people should only marry those that they are sexually attracted to as long as it doesn't violate either person's will."
That doesn't change my argument, it just makes something previously implicit now explicit. Any rational person within our common society would assume that one party would be unable to force the other to marry, regardless of age or gender.
The fact that this doesn't yield a contradiction doesn't mean that people should follow this view. The formula for Categorical Imperative is only useful for pointing out things that we should NOT do. This is because modus tollens proves that arguments are irrational through negation.
You haven't negated anything. You fail.
jeremtaylor
Posts: 35
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2009 7:24:45 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/22/2009 4:14:18 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
marriage is an agreement not to engage in sexual intercourse with any member of the opposite gender

good one. Sell it to a comedian :).

Frankly, the problem with Kant is not the categorical imperative as such (which can't take you anywhere, and isn't really much of an imperative at all, it just tells you what stupid things not to do, although it fails to reason out why and therefore can be taken out of useful context). So my issues with Kant aren't really relevant here.

In any case, the idea is "act only on the maxim that you would will to be universalized." Not "Act only in such a manner that that specific action tells you everything you need to know about the maxim." Same-sex marriage rarely if ever occurs according to the maxim "Thou shalt marry someone of the opposite sex." It usually occurs on some other principle. "Marrying only those sexually attracted to" is thus valid. Incidentally, allowing pedophilia (which would instead follow from "Marry ALL those on is sexually attracted to," not "only," if you know English), is not a problem as far as I'm concerned if the child consents :).

The problem with this is that Kant specified that the CI argument cannot be applied to a person's attribute. Attraction is an attribute. Also, since we're arguing about same-sex marriage, it needs to be something that can be tested legally. You can't legally test a person's attraction to another person. Also, if your version of the proof is applied and it doesn't yield a contradiction, that doesn't prove anything. The idea of modus tollens is that if there is a contradiction, then it proves that the original supposition is false. So a perfectly rational person would consider all possible cases, and if they reason through your proof, it wouldn't tell them anything, however if they reason my proof, they would find that same-sex marriage is irrational because it yields a contradiction.
jeremtaylor
Posts: 35
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2009 7:28:15 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/22/2009 4:17:50 PM, untitled_entity wrote:
At 7/22/2009 4:06:26 PM, jeremtaylor wrote:
At 7/22/2009 3:43:42 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 7/22/2009 3:40:05 PM, untitled_entity wrote:
I know. I was being facetious...
Though, it brings up an interesting point anyways. Does the OP mean that same-sex marriage can be denied through rationality, or that homosexuality can be denied as non-rational

I am saying that same-sex marriage is irrational and wrong. So, because it is wrong, it should not be legal.

Lots of things are "irrational and wrong" yet still legal.

Something can be irrational in a certain circumstance but there may not be a Categorical Imperative not to do it. This is because if it is dependent on the circumstances, there is a Hypothetical Imperative, which cannot be universalized.
jeremtaylor
Posts: 35
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2009 7:36:27 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/22/2009 4:49:44 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 7/22/2009 4:29:44 PM, jeremtaylor wrote:
When two people get married, do either of them not agree to remain faithful?

That is the common case, but have you never heard of "open marriages," "swingers," and all of that? It clearly isn't limited to just remaining faithful, in the sexual term at least.

I'm arguing for marriage to be defined as being between one man and one woman. Arguing that because people act irrationally means that they should continue to act irrationally is like arguing that because people commit crime, they should continue to commit crime. Again, you can't use the way things are to argue about the way they should be in a deductive argument.

My argument isn't based on the way things are, it is a deductive argument. My argument is true by definition and rationality, not experience.

Experience is key in any truly considered argument concerning the way humans run their lives, and why.

Experience is important for normal laws, however, deductive logic is important for things like The Constitution and The Bill of Rights. The reason why The Bill of Rights and The Constitution are the fundamental documents for this society and why all law must fall within the framework they set up is because they are based primarily on deductive philosophy, like natural law. My proof argues at this same level. Once a foundation is laid out based on deductive reason, then experience is taken into consideration.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2009 7:43:14 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/22/2009 7:24:45 PM, jeremtaylor wrote:
At 7/22/2009 4:14:18 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
marriage is an agreement not to engage in sexual intercourse with any member of the opposite gender

good one. Sell it to a comedian :).

Frankly, the problem with Kant is not the categorical imperative as such (which can't take you anywhere, and isn't really much of an imperative at all, it just tells you what stupid things not to do, although it fails to reason out why and therefore can be taken out of useful context). So my issues with Kant aren't really relevant here.

In any case, the idea is "act only on the maxim that you would will to be universalized." Not "Act only in such a manner that that specific action tells you everything you need to know about the maxim." Same-sex marriage rarely if ever occurs according to the maxim "Thou shalt marry someone of the opposite sex." It usually occurs on some other principle. "Marrying only those sexually attracted to" is thus valid. Incidentally, allowing pedophilia (which would instead follow from "Marry ALL those on is sexually attracted to," not "only," if you know English), is not a problem as far as I'm concerned if the child consents :).

The problem with this is that Kant specified that the CI argument cannot be applied to a person's attribute.
"Marrying only those sexually attracted to" doesn't rely on CI, it simply can't be rebutted by it. Since CI is inherently negative (it can't prove a principle), "applying it to an attribute" doesn't seem to mean much. And "Specifying" something is entirely different than proving it, so you are committing an ad authoritatem if you do mean something by it.

Attraction is an attribute. Also, since we're arguing about same-sex marriage, it needs to be something that can be tested legally.
I thought you were trying to prove it immoral, not prove that it should be illegal?

Also, if your version of the proof is applied and it doesn't yield a contradiction, that doesn't prove anything. The idea of modus tollens is that if there is a contradiction, then it proves that the original supposition is false. So a perfectly rational person would consider all possible cases, and if they reason through your proof, it wouldn't tell them anything, however if they reason my proof, they would find that same-sex marriage is irrational because it yields a contradiction.
Same sex-marriage as such does not yield a contradiction. You're stepping back to something we already disproved. The statement "I will it to be that absolutely everyone marry someone of the opposite sex" yields a contradiction, but no one upholds that statement. The practice of same-sex marriage is not based upon it.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
jeremtaylor
Posts: 35
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2009 7:52:51 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/22/2009 6:07:38 PM, TomPenn wrote:
At 7/22/2009 4:29:44 PM, jeremtaylor wrote:
At 7/22/2009 4:06:00 PM, TomPenn wrote:
I know that this particular definition is limited, but I didn't want to write out a comprehensive definition because most of the definition would be irrelevant. I only pointed out the element of marriage that is relevant.
No, you pointed out the part that would fit with your argument. You made the claim that if that one element of marriage is removed, then it becomes entirely invalid. You must note the other elements, which remain valid.

When two people get married, do either of them not agree to remain faithful?

No, but that's only one element of marriage. Now you're just asking me to repeat myself. I already admitted the validity of that element of marriage, but there are many other components, as I've already stated.

Is there another element of marriage that makes my analysis invalid?

You can't make an argument about the way things should be based on the way things are. If we could derive the way things should be based on how they are, I could argue that as it is, same-sex marriage is illegal in most states, so same-sex marriage should remain illegal.
My predictions are a response to yours. They are no less valid, and to undermine my argument, you would first have to go against your own. Also note the places in the world where gay marriage is legal.

My argument isn't based on the way things are, it is a deductive argument. My argument is true by definition and rationality, not experience.

Now you're contradicting yourself.

How am I contradicting myself? When I said that marriage is an agreement where two people agree not to engage in sexual activity with others, that's true by definition. It's like saying that a bachelor is a man who is not married. Therefore, all bachelors are not married. This is true by definition. So just as by definition, all bachelors are not married, everyone who gets married agrees not to engage in sexual activity with others.

3) Let's instead universalize the principle that people would only marry those they are sexually attracted to.


This would mean allowing pedophilia.
No, because that would be against the child's will.

Well, that changes your argument. Now your argument would be something like "people should only marry those that they are sexually attracted to as long as it doesn't violate either person's will."
That doesn't change my argument, it just makes something previously implicit now explicit. Any rational person within our common society would assume that one party would be unable to force the other to marry, regardless of age or gender.

Well, I don't agree with your premises, nor do I see that this supposition yields a contradiction, so I don't see how this advances the debate.

The fact that this doesn't yield a contradiction doesn't mean that people should follow this view. The formula for Categorical Imperative is only useful for pointing out things that we should NOT do. This is because modus tollens proves that arguments are irrational through negation.
You haven't negated anything. You fail.

Yes I have. I supposed that same-sex marriage is rational. Then I universalized it regardless of time and space. Define gender as an attribute where a person of a certain gender cannot produce offspring with others of their own gender. Define marriage as an agreement where the two people who enter into it agree not to engage in sexual actions with anyone other than the person they are married to. Define offspring as being necessary for human existence. Define same-sex marriage as two people of the same gender agreeing not to engage in sexual actions with anyone else. Based on these definitions, if same-sex marriage were universalized, there would be no offspring. Offspring is necessary to human existence. Human existence is necessary for same-sex marriage. Therefore, universalizing same-sex marriage would make same-sex marriage irrational because if you somehow existed in such a world, it would be irrational for you to will the maxim "I will enact same-sex marriage." This yields a contradiction. So, by modus tollens, the original supposition is false.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2009 7:53:34 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/22/2009 7:36:27 PM, jeremtaylor wrote:
I'm arguing for marriage to be defined as being between one man and one woman. Arguing that because people act irrationally means that they should continue to act irrationally is like arguing that because people commit crime, they should continue to commit crime. Again, you can't use the way things are to argue about the way they should be in a deductive argument.

Lol, really?

It is in human nature to have irrational acts that contradict what our biological purpose is. You're arguing that all people should act how you want them to act, which is supposedly "rational" - I'm arguing that people should act however they want, and the government shouldn't be an obstacle in their way.

To be honest, the most rational thing to do is not to have marriage at all. It stops someone from procreating as much as they can - it isn't rational according to our biological needs.

Your comparision to crime is pointless as well. Crime harms people - homosexuality and same-sex marriage do not.

Experience is important for normal laws, however, deductive logic is important for things like The Constitution and The Bill of Rights. The reason why The Bill of Rights and The Constitution are the fundamental documents for this society and why all law must fall within the framework they set up is because they are based primarily on deductive philosophy, like natural law. My proof argues at this same level. Once a foundation is laid out based on deductive reason, then experience is taken into consideration.

"Natural law" is bad example, especially because wild animals have homosexuality as well.

Also, you fail to prove that a law enshrining same-sex marriage goes against the "deductive logic" of fundamental documents.

For example, if the Bill of Rights says that the government shall not deny freedoms to all citizens, it therefore stands that homosexuals have a right to same-sex marriage, as it would go against the deductive logic of the Bill of Rights.