Marriage is a natural kind.

[ParaclitosLogos]

I don´t want to claim authorship of this idea, but, since, It is my rendering of it , I will just mention that I got it from Pruss, in some sense, though it could be the case that the way i am presenting it is not faithful or correct, so, it shouldn´t be taken as good, on the basis of Pruss´s purported support.

Now, any thoughts , questions, objections? I will be happy to engage with.

Marriage as a kind of relationship is both normatively and non-normatively explanatory.

P1. Inductive reasoning about marriage is appropriate.

P2. There are genuine similarities between marriages,

Especially if we focus normatively and cull outliers (e.i. green card marriage. child marriage.), when, narrowing the field is important in science.

P3. Explanations (normative and non-normative) on the basis of marriage are genuine explanations.

Cm: So, plausibly, marriage is a natural kind.

Reference:

natural-kinds-types-relationships-as-token-processes


natural-kinds-an-example

[kurros]

I don't really have time to read his argument right now, do you care to summarise the obvious objection? I.e. that marriage is not anything "natural" at all, people are only married if the government says they are married. It is a legal term.

[ParaclitosLogos]

I don't really have time to read his argument right now, do you care to summarise the obvious objection? I.e. that marriage is not anything "natural" at all, people are only married if the government says they are married. It is a legal term.

That is the summary.

What all governments do is recognize the relationship. And, that is not an objection to any of the premises.

[kurros]

I don't really have time to read his argument right now, do you care to summarise the obvious objection? I.e. that marriage is not anything "natural" at all, people are only married if the government says they are married. It is a legal term.

That is the summary.

What all governments do is recognize the relationship. And, that is not an objection to any of the premises.

Well like I said I haven't gotten around to reading it yet so I don't know what the premises are, and your summary gives no clues.

[ParaclitosLogos]

I don't really have time to read his argument right now, do you care to summarise the obvious objection? I.e. that marriage is not anything "natural" at all, people are only married if the government says they are married. It is a legal term.

That is the summary.

What all governments do is recognize the relationship. And, that is not an objection to any of the premises.

Well like I said I haven't gotten around to reading it yet so I don't know what the premises are, and your summary gives no clues.

I´m a bit confused, we seem to have a communication difficulty.

This is the argument (though, it is not formalized) as posted on the OP, and, it is as well, the summarization you asked for (at least, to my mind).

Marriage as a kind of relationship is both normatively and non-normatively explanatory.

P1. Inductive reasoning about marriage is appropriate.

P2. There are genuine similarities between marriages,

Especially if we focus normatively and cull outliers (e.i. green card marriage. child marriage.), when, narrowing the field is important in science.

P3. Explanations (normative and non-normative) on the basis of marriage are genuine explanations.

Cm: So, plausibly, marriage is a natural kind.

If you have questions about it, I´m happy to explain.

[belorg]

Marriage as a kind of relationship is both normatively and non-normatively explanatory.

Inductive reasoning about marriage is appropriate.

There are genuine similarities between marriages,
Especially if we focus normatively and cull outliers (e.i. green card marriage. child marriage.), when, narrowing the field is important in science.

Explanations (normative and non-normative) on the basis of marriage are genuine explanations,

 

So, plausibly, marriage is a natural kind.

Reference:

natural-kinds-types-relationships-as-token-processes


natural-kinds-an-example

Why don't you link to Pruss' post?

[belorg]

Marriage as a kind of relationship is both normatively and non-normatively explanatory.

Inductive reasoning about marriage is appropriate.

There are genuine similarities between marriages,
Especially if we focus normatively and cull outliers (e.i. green card marriage. child marriage.), when, narrowing the field is important in science.

Explanations (normative and non-normative) on the basis of marriage are genuine explanations,

 

So, plausibly, marriage is a natural kind.

Reference:

natural-kinds-types-relationships-as-token-processes


natural-kinds-an-example

Why don't you link to Pruss' post?

For those who are interested, here is the link http://alexanderpruss.blogspot.be/2012/10/marriage-as-natural-kind.html

[ParaclitosLogos]

Marriage as a kind of relationship is both normatively and non-normatively explanatory.

Inductive reasoning about marriage is appropriate.

There are genuine similarities between marriages,
Especially if we focus normatively and cull outliers (e.i. green card marriage. child marriage.), when, narrowing the field is important in science.

Explanations (normative and non-normative) on the basis of marriage are genuine explanations,

 

So, plausibly, marriage is a natural kind.

Reference:

natural-kinds-types-relationships-as-token-processes


natural-kinds-an-example

Why don't you link to Pruss' post?

I dont link it, because, I don´t (didn´t, until you linked it) have it,  and also, because, I think it is lazy to do so, with out, at least, providing a summary, as a I did on the OP.

[Bill McEnaney]

Wow, a thread about an article by my friend Alex.

[ParaclitosLogos]

Why don't you link to Pruss' post?

For those who are interested, here is the link http://alexanderpruss.blogspot.be/2012/10/marriage-as-natural-kind.html

This is actually the 2nd part of Pruss´s argument, that complements the one summarized on the OP, but, it´s not part of the OP.

[belorg]

Marriage as a kind of relationship is both normatively and non-normatively explanatory.

Inductive reasoning about marriage is appropriate.

There are genuine similarities between marriages,
Especially if we focus normatively and cull outliers (e.i. green card marriage. child marriage.), when, narrowing the field is important in science.

Explanations (normative and non-normative) on the basis of marriage are genuine explanations,

 

So, plausibly, marriage is a natural kind.

Reference:

natural-kinds-types-relationships-as-token-processes


natural-kinds-an-example

Why don't you link to Pruss' post?

I dont link it, because, I don´t (didn´t, until you linked it) have it,  and also, because, I think it is lazy to do so, with out, at least, providing a summary, as a I did on the OP.

Without a link, how do are we supposed to know whether your summary is accurate?

[ParaclitosLogos]

Marriage as a kind of relationship is both normatively and non-normatively explanatory.

Inductive reasoning about marriage is appropriate.

There are genuine similarities between marriages,
Especially if we focus normatively and cull outliers (e.i. green card marriage. child marriage.), when, narrowing the field is important in science.

Explanations (normative and non-normative) on the basis of marriage are genuine explanations,

 

So, plausibly, marriage is a natural kind.

Reference:

natural-kinds-types-relationships-as-token-processes


natural-kinds-an-example

Why don't you link to Pruss' post?

I dont link it, because, I don´t (didn´t, until you linked it) have it,  and also, because, I think it is lazy to do so, with out, at least, providing a summary, as a I did on the OP.

Without a link, how do are we supposed to know whether your summary is accurate?

I see your complain, I fixed the OP, accordingly.

[belorg]

I don´t want to claim authorship of this idea, but, since, It is my rendering of it , I will just mention that I got it from Pruss, in some sense, though it could be the case that the way i am presenting it is not faithful or correct, so, it shouldn´t be taken as good, on the basis of Pruss´s purported support.

Now, any thoughts , questions, objections? I will be happy to engage with.

Marriage as a kind of relationship is both normatively and non-normatively explanatory.

P1. Inductive reasoning about marriage is appropriate.

P2. There are genuine similarities between marriages,

Especially if we focus normatively and cull outliers (e.i. green card marriage. child marriage.), when, narrowing the field is important in science.

P3. Explanations (normative and non-normative) on the basis of marriage are genuine explanations.

Cm: So, plausibly, marriage is a natural kind.

Reference:

natural-kinds-types-relationships-as-token-processes


natural-kinds-an-example

Which kind of marriage is a natural kind?

Marriage in which the woman is subordinate? I  which the man is? Marriage in which both partners have equal rights? Marriage without the intent to procreate?

What are those 'genuine similarities between marriages'? A same -sex marriage, e.g. has a genuine similarity to another marriage in that it is based on love and mutual respect and in that it is between two partners and does not involve more partners, etc.
A marriage between a man and a woman past the age of feritily is genuinely similar to some same-sex marriages in that there is no intent to procreate.

Another problem is that is marriage is a natural kind, then is celibacy a natural kind as well?
What if marriage between a man and a woman is a natural kind for heterosexual people while same-sex relations and marriage is a natural kind for homosexual people?

[ParaclitosLogos]

I don´t want to claim authorship of this idea, but, since, It is my rendering of it , I will just mention that I got it from Pruss, in some sense, though it could be the case that the way i am presenting it is not faithful or correct, so, it shouldn´t be taken as good, on the basis of Pruss´s purported support.

Now, any thoughts , questions, objections? I will be happy to engage with.

Marriage as a kind of relationship is both normatively and non-normatively explanatory.

P1. Inductive reasoning about marriage is appropriate.

P2. There are genuine similarities between marriages,

Especially if we focus normatively and cull outliers (e.i. green card marriage. child marriage.), when, narrowing the field is important in science.

P3. Explanations (normative and non-normative) on the basis of marriage are genuine explanations.

Cm: So, plausibly, marriage is a natural kind.

Reference:

natural-kinds-types-relationships-as-token-processes


natural-kinds-an-example

Which kind of marriage is a natural kind?

Marriage in which the woman is subordinate? I  which the man is? Marriage in which both partners have equal rights? Marriage without the intent to procreate?

What are those 'genuine similarities between marriages'? A same -sex marriage, e.g. has a genuine similarity to another marriage in that it is based on love and mutual respect and in that it is between two partners and does not involve more partners, etc.
A marriage between a man and a woman past the age of feritily is genuinely similar to some same-sex marriages in that there is no intent to procreate.

Another problem is that is marriage is a natural kind, then is celibacy a natural kind as well?
What if marriage between a man and a woman is a natural kind for heterosexual people while same-sex relations and marriage is a natural kind for homosexual people?

Thanks for your questions.


The kind of relationship where it is pertinent to ask if women are subordinate or are in equal standing than men, and, it is an obvious question if an intent to procreate is in play and if it is fundamental, which seems to be a reasonable inductive inference.

You seem to agree ,then, that  there are genuine similarities between marriages ( belorg:"same-sex marriage ...has a genuine similarity to another marriage in that it is based on love and mutual respect and in that it is between two partners and does not involve more partners" , etc...)


So, we can agree that plausibly  marriage is a natural kind.



It doesn´t seem to follow that if marriage is a natural kind celibacy is, or maybe it does, I don´t see why is that a problem, at all.


If we could reach the conclusion that marriage between a man and a woman is a natural kind for heterosexual people while same-sex relations and marriage is another natural kind for homosexual people, it would be a great advance in understanding and informed actions could be taken on the basis of such knowledge.

[belorg]

I don´t want to claim authorship of this idea, but, since, It is my rendering of it , I will just mention that I got it from Pruss, in some sense, though it could be the case that the way i am presenting it is not faithful or correct, so, it shouldn´t be taken as good, on the basis of Pruss´s purported support.

Now, any thoughts , questions, objections? I will be happy to engage with.

Marriage as a kind of relationship is both normatively and non-normatively explanatory.

P1. Inductive reasoning about marriage is appropriate.

P2. There are genuine similarities between marriages,

Especially if we focus normatively and cull outliers (e.i. green card marriage. child marriage.), when, narrowing the field is important in science.

P3. Explanations (normative and non-normative) on the basis of marriage are genuine explanations.

Cm: So, plausibly, marriage is a natural kind.

Reference:

natural-kinds-types-relationships-as-token-processes


natural-kinds-an-example

Which kind of marriage is a natural kind?

Marriage in which the woman is subordinate? I  which the man is? Marriage in which both partners have equal rights? Marriage without the intent to procreate?

What are those 'genuine similarities between marriages'? A same -sex marriage, e.g. has a genuine similarity to another marriage in that it is based on love and mutual respect and in that it is between two partners and does not involve more partners, etc.
A marriage between a man and a woman past the age of feritily is genuinely similar to some same-sex marriages in that there is no intent to procreate.

Another problem is that is marriage is a natural kind, then is celibacy a natural kind as well?
What if marriage between a man and a woman is a natural kind for heterosexual people while same-sex relations and marriage is a natural kind for homosexual people?

Thanks for your questions.


The kind of relationship where it is pertinent to aks if women are subordinate or are in equal standing than men, and, it is an obvious question if and intent to procreation is in play and if it is fundamental, which seems to be a reasonable inductive inference.

Y ou seem to agree ,then, that  there are genuine similarities between marriages ( belorg:"same-sex marriage ...has a genuine similarity to another marriage in that it is based on love and mutual respect and in that it is between two partners and does not involve more partners" , etc...)


So, we can agree that plausibly  marriage is a natural kind.



It doesn´t seem to follow that if marriage is a natural kind celibacy is, or maybe it does, I don´t see why is that a problem, at all.


If we could reach the conclusion that marriage between a man and a woman is a natural kind for heterosexual people while same-sex relations and marriage is another natural kind for homosexual people, it would be a great advance in understanding and informed actions could be taken on the basis of such knowledge.

I we could reach that conclusion, the only informed action I can see would be to allow both kinds of marriages.