Same sex marriage

[Zen Badger]

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.

[NoMoreFaith]

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.

[StatCrux]

"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. "

[KichigaiNeko]

"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.

[Zen Badger]

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).

[StatCrux]

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.

[KichigaiNeko]

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

[Zen Badger]

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.

[genkaus]

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.

[StatCrux]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hGOXJI-fZmQ