Okay, so the legal state-recognized structure called marriage predates society and is intrinsic. It is objectively observable to be so. It is intended but not by an Intender.

And that is your defense of George?

Okay, you run with that and see where it gets you.

It seems, then, that you have an unjustified assumption about the nature of marriage which skews your analysis (I will admit that Dr. George may also have the same issue, but it seems that if you wish to declare victory through “demolishing” Dr. George’s argument, you should avoid any reasoning mistakes that you assert that he has made, or admit that either view is reasonable, once the premises are admitted.)

I am curious, then, as to what you believe to be the limits of malleability might be, and for what reason? What is the purpose of the construct, if it be a construct, such that limits may be assigned with a view toward its “proper” function as understood through appeal to human nature?

One more note to Mr. Kincaid:
Of course I have an interest in this issue, and thus a point of view. It doesn’t take a detective to figure that out. If I didn’t, I would not spend my time reading extensive analysis of major contributions to the debate, nor would I bother posting on a site which is clearly hostile to my point of view. I have made it perfectly clear from the outset that I disagree with Mr. Tisinai, and I am sure that it is clear that I am sympathetic to Dr. George’s position.

What I do not appreciate is the way in which you and Priya Lynn wish to insult me or discredit me in order to avoid dealing with the points which I am bring to bear. This is an important issue (a point on which I am sure we all agree), and as such, it deserves to be treated with careful thought and robust debate. The attempt to stifle debate through ad hominem attacks is unhelpful and distracting.

Thus, you have assumed that marriage is a convention constructed my man. Dr. George makes a different point: he says that marriage predates society, and is intrinsic to human nature; thus, it is not a construction of man, and thus, is not subject to redefinition at will, in the way you indicate that it should be. This, in fact, may be the rock-bottom crux of the issue, on which one’s position on this will dictate the position on the issue as a whole.

This article by Dr. George, et al (also linked to above) deals with this issue:

http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2010/12/2263

I am clear on the balance between rationalism and empiricism, I am just not sure that Dr. George’s arguments are rationalistic in the sense that you wish to portray them, but instead, they seem, to my mind, to have much more in common with Aristotle’s empiricism, in that it begins in the senses, that is, observations about the way that things are/work, and proceeds from there.

Thanks for the links, I’ll check them out! Once again, its been a pleasure, sir.

Good job on the Google search; you are aided by the fact that I have a uniquely spelled name, and that I don’t hide behind screen-names.

In this discussion I never specifically made my thoughts known, I stuck attempting to clarify arguments from the readings which have been referenced, as far as I can tell. Please point to the part where I editorialized beyond clarification of readings, if you think that I did.

You are engaging in ad hominem, and doing it poorly; what I may or may not what written at some time in the past has absolutely no bearing on the issue at hand, or on the arguments for or against the issue at hand.

As the Comments Policy on this sight indicates:

“…commenters may be moderated or banned for persisting in any of following behavior:
• Ad hominem attacks. Please frame your discussion around what someone says, not who someone is.”

It would seem that dredging up things written in the distant past which are completely irrelevant to the arguments contained within this dialogue are an attempt to discredit me as a person rather than the points that I am making, a tactic which is not only in poor taste and a fallacy, but is in violation of the rules of this site.

Finally, I believe I wrote that close to, or perhaps more than 5 years ago. My views have evolved quite a bit since then, as the views of a thinking person should.

Not really.

As it turns out, I happen to know that Aristotle never left this comment in the discussion about a movie:

This movie is a sickening barage of homosexual propaganda. I can only pray for the salvation of our once great nation when I see what our culture has disintigrated to.

I have little patience with pretenders and frauds, especially the “I never said” variety.

It wasn’t my intent in bringing up Aristotle to create a thoroughly classical Aristotelian analysis, so the question of teleology is really peripheral to what I’m doing here.

Really, my goal was to point out the difference between rationalism and empiricism, which I call out more specifically here: http://wakingupnow.com/blog/a-quick-story-of-rationalism-empiricism-and-balance

However, I’ve enjoyed our conversations on teleology. I do think Timothy has a strong point when he says that “intended” implies an “intender.” As for my own views, you might enjoy reading this: http://wakingupnow.com/blog/on-purpose

Sorry — I wrote this comment quickly. Hope it’s clear.

I am not sure I DEMANDED that anyone reply. Priya Lynn had jumped into the conversation, but rather than adding anything or addressing the ideas, had proceeded to insult me, despite the fact that I had not even put forward an opinion of my own except to quibble about the understanding of the particular readings mentioned (Dr. George and Aristotle, specifically), and therefore I wanted to refocus on my original points and move away from the distractions brought about by Priya Lynn. Thus, my intent was not to demand that Mr. Tisinai respond in any particular time frame. My intent was rather to indicate my unwillingness to engage in petty name-calling and further distraction from the issue at hand, and further, to state that I was interested to engage with Mr. Tisinai (but not with Priya Lynn), should he so choose to respond. I appreciate Mr. Tisinai’s willingness to engage with me on this important issue.

Finally, I still have not specifically put forth a view of my own, outside of attempting to clarify what I understand to be Dr. George’s and Aristotle’s arguments, therefore I most certainly have not said anything resembling “I’m right unless you prove otherwise”, in terms of teleology or scientific method. My point there was to show how Priya Lynn’s dismissal of me and insulting my intelligence on the basis of my simply bringing up the idea of teleology ( A concept crucial to Aristotle) is itself based on nothing more than the dismissal by the early moderns (Bacon, Descartes, Hobbes, etc.) of that Aristotelian idea, NOT on the basis of their own method, but rather on philosophical presuppositions about the nature of reality.

I might also note that it is Mr. Tisinai who has first brought Aristotle up as a topic of discussion (in the very first installment of this series), and has appealed to Aristotle as an authority.