Posts: 5389
Threads: 52
Joined: January 3, 2010
Reputation:
48
RE: Same sex marriage
May 14, 2012 at 9:18 am
(May 14, 2012 at 9:15 am)StatCrux Wrote: (May 14, 2012 at 9:08 am)genkaus Wrote: Rule: Male-female unions are procreative.
Exception: Infertile male-female unions are not.
New Rule: Only male-female unions can be procreative.
Exception: With emerging technology, it is possible to reproduce asexually (cloning) or with same-sex partners.
New Rule: A human being can procreate.
That isn't my position and you know it.
Rule: Male-Female unions are procreative in principal
Exception: None
Rule: Same sex relationships are not procreative in principal (Ie without recourse to artificial intervention)
Exception: None
Yes? and how does this invalidate same sex marriage?
Which is the point of the thread.
![[Image: mybannerglitter06eee094.gif]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=i118.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fo112%2Fpussinboots_photos%2FBikes%2Fmybannerglitter06eee094.gif)
If you're not supposed to ride faster than your guardian angel can fly then mine had better get a bloody SR-71.
Posts: 1123
Threads: 18
Joined: February 15, 2012
Reputation:
27
RE: Same sex marriage
May 14, 2012 at 9:18 am
Don't forget;
Rule: The purpose of Marriage is to make babies
Exception: none
If you reject that rule, I don't see how you have any rational objection to gay marriage. Whether they can have babies in principal or not, you ignore the issue that people don't get married to make babies.
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: 390
Threads: 8
Joined: September 9, 2011
Reputation:
2
RE: Same sex marriage
May 14, 2012 at 9:19 am
(This post was last modified: May 14, 2012 at 9:21 am by StatCrux.)
(May 14, 2012 at 9:08 am)genkaus Wrote: "with full knowledge that exceptions exist that prove that the criteria is incorrect" Genkaus
I haven't given any criteria for male or female.
That point was regarding your definition of marriage, not male/female, you moron.
[/quote]
No it wasn't! that definition was specifically about definitions of male and female! Anyone can read the text.
that definition came after this point, remember?
"right stay on this topic, no diversions. answer the question, what is the definition of male and female? If male and female exist (which you accepted) give your criteria for determining them. You have consistently failed to provide any definitions. "
Posts: 12512
Threads: 202
Joined: January 3, 2010
Reputation:
107
RE: Same sex marriage
May 14, 2012 at 9:20 am
(This post was last modified: May 14, 2012 at 9:23 am by KichigaiNeko.)
(May 14, 2012 at 9:19 am)StatCrux Wrote: (May 14, 2012 at 9:08 am)genkaus Wrote: "with full knowledge that exceptions exist that prove that the criteria is incorrect" Genkaus
I haven't given any criteria for male or female.
That point was regarding your definition of marriage, not male/female, you moron.
No it wasn't! that definition was specifically about definitions of male and female! Anyone can read the text.
And yet still dances around the point of same sex marriage.
"The Universe is run by the complex interweaving of three elements: energy, matter, and enlightened self-interest." G'Kar-B5
Posts: 5389
Threads: 52
Joined: January 3, 2010
Reputation:
48
RE: Same sex marriage
May 14, 2012 at 9:21 am
(May 14, 2012 at 9:18 am)NoMoreFaith Wrote: Don't forget;
Rule: The purpose of Marriage is to make babies
Exception: none
If you reject that rule, I don't see how you have any rational objection to gay marriage. Whether they can have babies in principal or not, you ignore the issue that people don't get married to make babies.
Well, the postion of the cathoholic church is that you only have sex to make babies(presumably to keep up the supply of alterboys for the priests).
If you're not supposed to ride faster than your guardian angel can fly then mine had better get a bloody SR-71.
Posts: 390
Threads: 8
Joined: September 9, 2011
Reputation:
2
RE: Same sex marriage
May 14, 2012 at 9:31 am
(This post was last modified: May 14, 2012 at 9:38 am by StatCrux.)
(May 14, 2012 at 9:18 am)NoMoreFaith Wrote: Don't forget;
Rule: The purpose of Marriage is to make babies
Exception: none
If you reject that rule, I don't see how you have any rational objection to gay marriage. Whether they can have babies in principal or not, you ignore the issue that people don't get married to make babies.
I do eject that rule, that has never been my position. I say marriage is defined in part not only as a union open to to procreation of offspring in principal. Any union not open to procreation in principal is therefore not a marriage. Infertile couples (male/female) are still in principal procreative even if not in actuality.
Posts: 12512
Threads: 202
Joined: January 3, 2010
Reputation:
107
RE: Same sex marriage
May 14, 2012 at 9:35 am
(This post was last modified: May 14, 2012 at 9:38 am by KichigaiNeko.)
(May 14, 2012 at 9:31 am)StatCrux Wrote: (May 14, 2012 at 9:18 am)NoMoreFaith Wrote: Don't forget;
Rule: The purpose of Marriage is to make babies
Exception: none
If you reject that rule, I don't see how you have any rational objection to gay marriage. Whether they can have babies in principal or not, you ignore the issue that people don't get married to make babies.
I do eject that rule, that has never been my position. I say marriage is defined in part not only as a union open to to procreation of offspring in principal. Any union not open to procreation in principal is therefore not a marriage. Infertile couples (male/female) are still in principal procreative even if not in actuality.
So why not same sex marriage?? Not EVERY Male/Female "marriage" is "procreative" so why not same sex marriage?
What is being fought for here is the LEGAL ramifications not the religious ones. I think that same sex marriage SHOULD be recognised under law just as De-Facto/ Common Law marriage is recognised under law.
I am thinking you are just being elitist Crotch
"The Universe is run by the complex interweaving of three elements: energy, matter, and enlightened self-interest." G'Kar-B5
Posts: 5389
Threads: 52
Joined: January 3, 2010
Reputation:
48
RE: Same sex marriage
May 14, 2012 at 9:36 am
(May 14, 2012 at 9:31 am)StatCrux Wrote: (May 14, 2012 at 9:18 am)NoMoreFaith Wrote: Don't forget;
Rule: The purpose of Marriage is to make babies
Exception: none
If you reject that rule, I don't see how you have any rational objection to gay marriage. Whether they can have babies in principal or not, you ignore the issue that people don't get married to make babies.
I do eject that rule, that has never been my position. I say marriage is defined in part not only as a union open to to procreation of offspring in principal. Any union not open to procreation in principal is therefore not a marriage. Infertile couples (male/female) are still in principal procreative even if not in actuality.
Your position might've been fine for the 14th century but it's the 21st now.
You're a tad obsolete.
As is the outdated archaic institution which you cleave unto.
If you're not supposed to ride faster than your guardian angel can fly then mine had better get a bloody SR-71.
Posts: 3188
Threads: 8
Joined: December 9, 2011
Reputation:
31
RE: Same sex marriage
May 14, 2012 at 9:38 am
(May 14, 2012 at 9:15 am)StatCrux Wrote: That isn't my position and you know it.
Rule: Male-Female unions are procreative in principal
Exception: None
Rule: Same sex relationships are not procreative in principal (Ie without recourse to artificial intervention)
Exception: None
Let's go with that.
Rule: Male-Female unions are procreative in principal (Ie without recourse to artificial intervention)
Exception1: Infertile male-female unions are not procreative in principle (Ie without recourse to artificial intervention).
Exception2: Male-Female unions below or above a certain age are not procreative in principle (Ie without recourse to artificial intervention).
Now, go ahead and correct your rule, since this one is invalidated.
Posts: 390
Threads: 8
Joined: September 9, 2011
Reputation:
2
RE: Same sex marriage
May 14, 2012 at 9:40 am
|
