|
|
|
|
 | |  |
| I would like to discuss necessity and sufficiency, especially vis-a-vis these "Marriage is love" things I've been seeing. | |
 | |  |
|
 |
| | |
| In order for "Marriage is love" to imply "All those in love should be married (or be allowed to marry)" we must establish that love implies marriage. | |
| | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | |
| In other words, the existence of love is sufficient to establish a right to marriage. | |
| | |
|
|
| | |
| Though one may argue that love is a necessary condition for marriage (not true, but I accept it arguendo), no one has proved to me that love creates a right to marry the object of that love. | |
| | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | |
| Do you love your mother? Your dog? And, if they love you, doesn't that meet a sufficient condition for the right to marry? | |
| | |
|
|
| | |
| Please, understand logic and have precise definitions of words before you try to argue. I truly hate having to own you over and over again. | |
| | |
|
|
|
