Same sex marriage

[KichigaiNeko]

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.

Welcome to the wonderful flexible inexact and fluid world of science.

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.

Ah yes GENERALITES...not a very stable platform for any argumentum ad populum

In the same way we can say that male-female unions are procreative in principal, whilst having exceptions.

Mostly that some will be infertile...are you saying that these individuals mated incorrectly between species?

The exceptions do not invalidate the general rule, that's the issue.

Are you certain of this??

Same sex unions are not procreative in principal.

Valid point ....but what of overpopulation being the driving factor?? Many mammalian species will NOT procreate BECAUSE of over population and diminishing resources...eg: Habitat

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?

Nature does not deal in absolutes. Nature is an opportunistic environment so your seeking of an absolute is invalid, and your "General Rule" is just that...an anthropogenic generality. I other words...'YOU can't make Nature conform to YOUR ideals'