Posts: 1123
Threads: 18
Joined: February 15, 2012
Reputation:
27
RE: Same sex marriage
May 13, 2012 at 12:00 pm
Wow, couple of month hiatus and back for more asskicking.
I thought we'd dispensed with your faulty logic ages ago.
You once again push the "devaluation of the special relationship". In what way is a relationship devalued EXACTLY, between two people of the same sex.
Force them to marry against their will to someone they have no interest in? Force them to remain in relationships bereft of the same rights as other people?
Can you honestly say that your reasoning has any reasonable basis, or merely a smoke screen for your religious beliefs disconnected with the real world. The more you try to justify it, the more you become a parody.
So finally, in what way, is the relationship between a man and a woman devalued, by same-sex marriage? Is the ONLY reason to be married, to have kids? Is that the only reason you marry someone? So you can knock them up?
You say they devalue a special relationship. I say you devalue love. I know which is the greater crime imo.
Self-authenticating private evidence is useless, because it is indistinguishable from the illusion of it. ― Kel, Kelosophy Blog
If you’re going to watch tele, you should watch Scooby Doo. That show was so cool because every time there’s a church with a ghoul, or a ghost in a school. They looked beneath the mask and what was inside?
The f**king janitor or the dude who runs the waterslide. Throughout history every mystery. Ever solved has turned out to be. Not Magic. ― Tim Minchin, Storm
Posts: 15755
Threads: 194
Joined: May 15, 2009
Reputation:
145
RE: Same sex marriage
May 13, 2012 at 12:02 pm
(May 13, 2012 at 8:31 am)Rhythm Wrote: "Militant homosexuals" hehehe, Lilly....Trans brigade, airborne wing?
Look at all those short shorts...totally suspect. Hell, they're practically auditioning for a musical.
FUCK YEAH!!
And you know what: I've always loved flying. What fun it would be to be a fighter pilot. Paratrooping not so much...
Please give me a home where cloud buffalo roam
Where the dear and the strangers can play
Where sometimes is heard a discouraging word
But the skies are not stormy all day
Posts: 3188
Threads: 8
Joined: December 9, 2011
Reputation:
31
RE: Same sex marriage
May 13, 2012 at 12:08 pm
(May 13, 2012 at 11:36 am)StatCrux Wrote: How is your form of morality objective? I don't think you're getting this? Your criteria for "facts" is in itself just a set of beliefs about "facts" how do you know your criteria is correct for determining "facts" without reference to some other accepted truths/beliefs about reality you can't. You can't prove logic with logic, its just accepted, the same is true of God, a self evident first principle.
You are the one not getting it. The correct criteria for determining facts are the undeniable axioms of reality. They are undeniable because even in the process of denying them, you have to accept them as true. They are accepted because without accepting them, there can be no such things as facts or truth or proof or belief. Your god is not of of those axioms, he is not self-evident and, in fact, he is illogical an contra-factual.
Posts: 390
Threads: 8
Joined: September 9, 2011
Reputation:
2
RE: Same sex marriage
May 13, 2012 at 12:35 pm
(This post was last modified: May 13, 2012 at 12:41 pm by StatCrux.)
(May 13, 2012 at 12:00 pm)NoMoreFaith Wrote: Wow, couple of month hiatus and back for more asskicking.
I thought we'd dispensed with your faulty logic ages ago.
You once again push the "devaluation of the special relationship". In what way is a relationship devalued EXACTLY, between two people of the same sex.
Force them to marry against their will to someone they have no interest in? Force them to remain in relationships bereft of the same rights as other people?
Can you honestly say that your reasoning has any reasonable basis, or merely a smoke screen for your religious beliefs disconnected with the real world. The more you try to justify it, the more you become a parody.
So finally, in what way, is the relationship between a man and a woman devalued, by same-sex marriage? Is the ONLY reason to be married, to have kids? Is that the only reason you marry someone? So you can knock them up?
You say they devalue a special relationship. I say you devalue love. I know which is the greater crime imo.
Quite simple to answer really, if something requires a set of criteria, if you need to remove some of the criteria in order to redefine it, by definition it is devalued. At present marriage is open to procreation in principle (couples who cannot have children doesn't alter the principle, therefore not relevant) If we now say that marriage is simply a union of two persons it is devalued and we lose the special procreative union as defined at present. (UK Law)
(May 13, 2012 at 12:08 pm)genkaus Wrote: (May 13, 2012 at 11:36 am)StatCrux Wrote: How is your form of morality objective? I don't think you're getting this? Your criteria for "facts" is in itself just a set of beliefs about "facts" how do you know your criteria is correct for determining "facts" without reference to some other accepted truths/beliefs about reality you can't. You can't prove logic with logic, its just accepted, the same is true of God, a self evident first principle.
You are the one not getting it. The correct criteria for determining facts are the undeniable axioms of reality. They are undeniable because even in the process of denying them, you have to accept them as true. They are accepted because without accepting them, there can be no such things as facts or truth or proof or belief. Your god is not of of those axioms, he is not self-evident and, in fact, he is illogical an contra-factual.
Well I totally disagree, Gods existence is axiomatic, we can refuse to acknowledge it, but it still remains a truth, you are simply denying the very thing that gives you being and capability to deny it.
Posts: 3188
Threads: 8
Joined: December 9, 2011
Reputation:
31
RE: Same sex marriage
May 13, 2012 at 1:45 pm
(This post was last modified: May 13, 2012 at 1:50 pm by genkaus.)
(May 13, 2012 at 12:35 pm)StatCrux Wrote: Well I totally disagree, Gods existence is axiomatic, we can refuse to acknowledge it, but it still remains a truth, you are simply denying the very thing that gives you being and capability to deny it.
Your disagreement is irrelevant. As is your incapacity to comprehend what constitutes an axiom or truth or how you judge them. Your failure to understand the criteria for axiomicity does not make your fraudulent concept of god into one.
(May 13, 2012 at 12:35 pm)StatCrux Wrote: Quite simple to answer really, if something requires a set of criteria, if you need to remove some of the criteria in order to redefine it, by definition it is devalued. At present marriage is open to procreation in principle (couples who cannot have children doesn't alter the principle, therefore not relevant) If we now say that marriage is simply a union of two persons it is devalued and we lose the special procreative union as defined at present. (UK Law)
Actually, if procreative union is the principle in play, couples unable to procreate (not just barren people, but elderly women as well) would not be eligible for the union without devaluing the definition. That you are using special pleading to excuse their inclusion does not change the fact.
Posts: 390
Threads: 8
Joined: September 9, 2011
Reputation:
2
RE: Same sex marriage
May 13, 2012 at 2:10 pm
(This post was last modified: May 13, 2012 at 2:12 pm by StatCrux.)
(May 13, 2012 at 1:45 pm)genkaus Wrote: Actually, if procreative union is the principle in play, couples unable to procreate (not just barren people, but elderly women as well) would not be eligible for the union without devaluing the definition. That you are using special pleading to excuse their inclusion does not change the fact.
Read what I said, "open to procreation in principle" not the principle of procreation, there is a huge distinction. I'm not saying that all individual marriages must be capable of producing offspring. Same sex marriages are not in principle open to procreation.
Posts: 66519
Threads: 140
Joined: June 28, 2011
Reputation:
160
RE: Same sex marriage
May 13, 2012 at 2:12 pm
(This post was last modified: May 13, 2012 at 2:13 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
LOL, something tells me you have a penis Crux? "Wife as vessel for seed" in principle...lol. Rock on buddy. Dream the dream.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Posts: 390
Threads: 8
Joined: September 9, 2011
Reputation:
2
RE: Same sex marriage
May 13, 2012 at 2:19 pm
(May 13, 2012 at 2:12 pm)Rhythm Wrote: LOL, something tells me you have a penis Crux? "Wife as vessel for seed" in principle...lol. Rock on buddy. Dream the dream.
You couldn't be more wrong, as I've said on here previously.
Posts: 66519
Threads: 140
Joined: June 28, 2011
Reputation:
160
RE: Same sex marriage
May 13, 2012 at 2:55 pm
No shit, being wrong always makes me smile a little. Thanks for brightening my day. Now, if only I could get my wife to sign onto the vessel bit....
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Posts: 3188
Threads: 8
Joined: December 9, 2011
Reputation:
31
RE: Same sex marriage
May 13, 2012 at 3:00 pm
(May 13, 2012 at 2:10 pm)StatCrux Wrote: Read what I said, "open to procreation in principle" not the principle of procreation, there is a huge distinction. I'm not saying that all individual marriages must be capable of producing offspring. Same sex marriages are not in principle open to procreation.
Marriages between infertile couples or with post-menopausal women are also not capable of producing offspring. They too are not "in principle open to procreation". Try and understand the complete implications of your own damn arguments.
|
