Same sex marriage

[genkaus]

Not at all, its a perfect example. The exception that infertile couples can't procreate proves that there is a general rule that male-female couples can procreate. I did say procreation in principle, not procreation in actuality. Procreation in principal is a better term than potential, because potential implies actual procreation must be potentially present, only the principal need be present not the potential.

Really? So what's the difference between procreation in principle and procreation in potential. Because apparently, in principle, even same sex procreation is possible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproductio...production


Oh and by the way, your "exception proves the rule" argument, actually means that pointing out an exception simply proves that a rule exists. It says nothing about the validity of the rule.

[Gooders1002]

Marriage is not about making babies, it about 2 people making a commitment to each other.
That is all marriage is.
and here is the dictionary definition:
mar·riage
noun /ˈmarij/ 
marriages, plural

The formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife

A similar long-term relationship between partners of the same sex

A relationship between married people or the period for which it lasts
- a happy marriage
- the children from his first marriage

A combination or mixture of two or more elements
- a marriage of jazz, pop, blues, and gospel

(in pinochle and other card games) A combination of a king and queen of the same suit

[StatCrux]

Not at all, its a perfect example. The exception that infertile couples can't procreate proves that there is a general rule that male-female couples can procreate. I did say procreation in principle, not procreation in actuality. Procreation in principal is a better term than potential, because potential implies actual procreation must be potentially present, only the principal need be present not the potential.

Really? So what's the difference between procreation in principle and procreation in potential. Because apparently, in principle, even same sex procreation is possible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproductio...production

procreation in principal is only possible between male and female. Same sex relationships cannot procreate without outside intervention, therefore in principal they cannot procreate.

An infertile woman, in principal could procreate, ie if she were a fully functioning woman (no change in nature) she could procreate, but she remains with no procreative potential due to her infertility. A same sex union has neither procreative nature in principal or potential.

---

Marriage is not about making babies, it about 2 people making a commitment to each other.
That is all marriage is.
and here is the dictionary definition:
mar·riage
noun /ˈmarij/ 
marriages, plural

The formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife

A similar long-term relationship between partners of the same sex

A relationship between married people or the period for which it lasts
- a happy marriage
- the children from his first marriage

A combination or mixture of two or more elements
- a marriage of jazz, pop, blues, and gospel

(in pinochle and other card games) A combination of a king and queen of the same suit

This is the very point that is being debated, marriage is not just two people making a commitment to each other, that is a diminished view of marriage. In order to be considered a marriage it must be ordered to the complementary nature of male and female and open to the principal of procreation. Anything other than this is simply a contract between two people.

see earlier definitions supplied

[Gooders1002]

As in my definition of marriage what does baby making got to do with marriage, there completely separate. Thus you point is invalid.

[StatCrux]

As in my definition of marriage what does baby making got to do with marriage, there completely separate. Thus you point is invalid.

"Under UK law, the legal definition of marriage is the ''union of a man and a woman''. With same-sex partnerships the legal definition of marriage would not apply. The Civil Partnership Act was created as the solution whereby same-sex couples can become ''married'' and benefit from the legal rights that mixed-sex marriage affords." Contract Law UK

"The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life, is by its nature ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring; this covenant between baptized persons has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament." Catechism of the Catholic Church.

[Gooders1002]

As in my definition of marriage what does baby making got to do with marriage, there completely separate. Thus you point is invalid.

"Under UK law, the legal definition of marriage is the ''union of a man and a woman''. With same-sex partnerships the legal definition of marriage would not apply. The Civil Partnership Act was created as the solution whereby same-sex couples can become ''married'' and benefit from the legal rights that mixed-sex marriage affords." Contract Law UK

"The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life, is by its nature ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring; this covenant between baptized persons has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament." Catechism of the Catholic Church.

First of, the UK law will change, I have no doubt in that. And Secondly how many people take the catholic church seriously any more after there huge incident with child rape? as there word means shit to anybody who is not catholic.

[genkaus]

procreation in principal is only possible between male and female. Same sex relationships cannot procreate without outside intervention, therefore in principal they cannot procreate.

An infertile woman, in principal could procreate, ie if she were a fully functioning woman (no change in nature) she could procreate, but she remains with no procreative potential due to her infertility. A same sex union has neither procreative nature in principal or potential.

Clearly, reality disagrees with your delusions. Procreation is possible asexually or hermaphroditically or sexually with two genders or with advancement in science with two identical genders even without external intervention (in principle, that is). You can keep repeating your ignorant delusions but that won't change the reality and it won't make your position any better.


Let's examine our debate so far and see how your position has been falling apart as you still cling to it. Let's pay particular attention to all the arguments you could not reply to and chose to ignore - as if if you ignored them, they'd cease to exist.

1. On the question of proving god's axiomicity - ignored.
2. The third gender argument for a better classification of human genders - ignored.
3. Question of why the exceptions would not invalidate the rule - ignored and the statement simply repeated
4. Distinction between potential and principle - ignored.
5. The question of accepting that we are using the wrong criteria while we figure out the correct one - ignored.
6. The question of correction upon discovery of the correct criteria -ignored.
7. The question of if it is possible for you to correct your position - ignored.

Even accepting your frankly bigoted rule, your argument is still blown out of the water. All you are capable of doing at this point is shut your ears, close your eyes, stamp your foot and cry "Not so".

---

"Under UK law, the legal definition of marriage is the ''union of a man and a woman''. With same-sex partnerships the legal definition of marriage would not apply. The Civil Partnership Act was created as the solution whereby same-sex couples can become ''married'' and benefit from the legal rights that mixed-sex marriage affords." Contract Law UK

"The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life, is by its nature ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring; this covenant between baptized persons has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament." Catechism of the Catholic Church.

The law can change and the church's opinion is worthless. Anything else?

[Matt231]

"Under UK law, the legal definition of marriage is the ''union of a man and a woman''.

And under Canadian law, it's "the lawful union of two persons."

---

In order to be considered a marriage it must be ordered to the complementary nature of male and female and open to the principal of procreation. Anything other than this is simply a contract between two people.

No it's not, since many other countries see marriage as a union between two people.

[StatCrux]

Let's examine our debate so far and see how your position has been falling apart as you still cling to it. Let's pay particular attention to all the arguments you could not reply to and chose to ignore - as if if you ignored them, they'd cease to exist.

1. On the question of proving god's axiomicity - ignored.
2. The third gender argument for a better classification of human genders - ignored.
3. Question of why the exceptions would not invalidate the rule - ignored and the statement simply repeated
4. Distinction between potential and principle - ignored.
5. The question of accepting that we are using the wrong criteria while we figure out the correct one - ignored.
6. The question of correction upon discovery of the correct criteria -ignored.
7. The question of if it is possible for you to correct your position - ignored.

What utter rubbish!
1.God is axiomatic, being the case its impossible to debate, its self evident.
2.There never was a gender issue, YOU didn't give any definitions of gender to base any discussion on, despite being asked to do so on numerous occasions.
3.Example given of the gym membership exception rule showing that the general rule is not invalidated by the exception
4.Potential and principal was distinguished, potential is actual, principal is possible within nature but not yet potential
5.criteria of general rules are not affected by extreme exceptions
6.You failed to give any examples of correct criteria regarding male and female definitions
7.I have no need to correct my position given your lack of addressing the problems.

I think you are under some delusion that your ignoring my responses and restating your opinion over again is in some way a substitute for discussion, even worse you think you're winning the debate that you have refused to engage. Ignoring responses and restating your opinion is not discussion.

In fact lets be specific on a point. 2. The gender argument, as you say. What exactly is this gender argument you refer to? please provide quotes of me that demonstrate this "gender argument" I ask you for definitions of gender and you don't provide them.

[Gooders1002]

Look who is calling the kettle black?