>>30690758>there are only two viable options for parenting So you admit that both single parenthood and married parents are viable options. That means you can see the value in both. Also, there is another option: raiding a child out of wedlock with your significant other. Yes, I know, shocking thought, but it does exist. What is it with you and using the false dichotomy logical fallacy?
.
>your claim seems to be that non is better than the otherI said that you can value both, not that they are equal in value. This leads back to your false dichotomy that you can either be for marriage in the absolute, or you aren't for marriage, which o btfo'd earlier. Other positions exist, as I have demonstrated.
>you can't be pro democracy if you think fascism is a better optionBut that's not what I'm saying, is it? I'm saying that both marriage and single parenthood are viable options with value, and, unlike fascism and democracy, thry can coexist within a single governing system. False equivalence.
>how exactly do you value marriageI assign positive qualities to it. marriage has the potential to enhance one's life, both legally and spiritually. I also believe that single parenthood is valuable in the right circumstance.
Also, why, again, are we talking about parenthood? This discussion was originally about marriage, not parenthood. You need to stop changing goalposts.
>b-but that value is circumstantial. They don't *REALLY* value it.All value is circumstantial. Gold is valuable because we can use it as a superconductor, but this was not always the case. Before we had computers, gold was still valuable, and even today, gold is used for purposes where it's value as a superconductor is irrelevant. Because of those circumstances, gold has value. Value is a subjective, human concept. Therefore, all value is due to circumstance. As such saying "value of x is circumstantial, and therefore not TRUE value" is contradictory to the nature of value. Try again.
