Replies

Dear iranger,

Well, what can I tell ya?

Analogies don't make for precise logical arguments. As I've said multiple times to you, that isn't their purpose.

Read what I actually wrote, and perhaps you may understand what I actually wrote:

Kerretarded asked:

"If the purpose of sexual relations within marriage is to be both unitive and procreative, how is it intrinsically moral to purposely and knowingly avoid a time when the act could bear fruit?"

I replied, in part:

"That's a great question!

"As a Catholic, it's a question with which I struggled for years and years. Frankly, I've never found an intellectual argument that is wholly satisfying."[emphasis added]

I then continued:

"However, a former poster here at Free Republic, Brian Kopp, introduced me to an analogy that made the connection for me."

After presenting the analogy, I concluded:

"There are others who can present excellent intellectual arguments. Perhaps they might assist. However, for me, Brian's little analogy was persuasive to me in a way that the intellectual arguments were not."[emphasis added]

That you conclude that an analogy is not a rigorous intellectual argument is true... and irrelevant, as I explicitly offered it IN LIEU of a rigorous intellectual argument.

As an analogy, the analogy offered works splendidly. It illustrates and illuminates, rather than argues, the difference between means and ends.

sitetest