RE: Same sex marriage
May 14, 2012 at 8:45 am
(This post was last modified: May 14, 2012 at 8:47 am by StatCrux.)
(May 14, 2012 at 7:53 am)genkaus Wrote:(May 14, 2012 at 7:47 am)KichigaiNeko Wrote: Valid point ...
Is it? I mean, if the scientists can combine two eggs to produce a daughter mouse, it'd seem that same-sex unions can be procreative in principle.
Yes if your definition of union is external tampering by scientists....more of an unholy fusion I would say..
(May 14, 2012 at 8:24 am)Zen Badger Wrote:(May 14, 2012 at 8:14 am)StatCrux Wrote: Basically you are saying our present criteria is wrong but have nothing better to offer.
OK so we're in agreement now.
Are you admitting that we use criteria even though there may be exceptions? That's what it sounds like to me, which is what I've been saying from the start!
What about the part you missed? The whole point originally was this issue. You were saying that exceptions invalidate the general rule, I was saying that the rule is still applicable, you seem to be admitting that it is still applicable even though exceptions exist.
Our present criteria is fine Stat, it is yours that is completely fucked up.
Oh dear...This is hard work..It's Genkaus that says the criteria is incorrect.