(May 14, 2012 at 6:44 am)Gooders1002 Wrote: How many times do we have to go over this with you, are you thick or something, we given you multiple definitions (I gave you a dictionary definitions of both Men and Women), so with these would you like to ask your question again?
It's not simply about giving a definition. The whole exercise is to show that we all accept general definitions even when there is exceptions to the general definition. You accept the general definition of male and female even with the knowledge that some conditions exist that do not comply with the general rule. In the same way we can say that male-female unions are procreative in principal, whilst having exceptions. The exceptions do not invalidate the general rule, that's the issue. Same sex unions are not procreative in principal. You can't have it both ways, either the exceptions do invalidate the general rule, in which case give a new definition of male and female that incorporates the exceptions or admit that the exceptions do not invalidate the general rule, which is it?
