Same sex marriage

[genkaus]

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 give 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.

What utter rubbish.

1. Prove that your god is axiomatic and/or self-evident.
2. Argument was raised of awaiting knowledge regarding correct criteria - ignored.
3. Invalid example. The only thing the exception proved was that such a rule existed, not that the rule was valid. That argument was ignored.
4. Shows your poor grasp of language. "Possible within nature" is the definition of potential. Potential means "possible but not within existence, i.e. actual". So potential is not actual.
5. Repeated statement with no actual argument.
6. See point 2.
7. Misrepresenting the question asked.

You really fail at all levels of debate.

---

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.

Check again. I've replied to everyone of your delusions, even going as far as to give you the benefit of the doubt.

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.

You mean where I stated that "we may use the common criteria for distinguishing male and female genders (referring to the chromosome criteria or the sperm/egg criteria), with full knowledge that exceptions exist that prove that the criteria is incorrect whist being the best we've got and with full intention of correcting it when such a discovery is made."? That was my argument you didn't reply to.

[StatCrux]

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 give 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.

What utter rubbish.

1. Prove that your god is axiomatic and/or self-evident.
2. Argument was raised of awaiting knowledge regarding correct criteria - ignored.
3. Invalid example. The only thing the exception proved was that such a rule existed, not that the rule was valid. That argument was ignored.
4. Shows your poor grasp of language. "Possible within nature" is the definition of potential. Potential means "possible but not within existence, i.e. actual". So potential is not actual.
5. Repeated statement with no actual argument.
6. See point 2.
7. Misrepresenting the question asked.

You really fail at all levels of debate.

---

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.

Check again. I've replied to everyone of your delusions, even going as far as to give you the benefit of the doubt.

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.

You mean where I stated that "we may use the common criteria for distinguishing male and female genders (referring to the chromosome criteria or the sperm/egg criteria), with full knowledge that exceptions exist that prove that the criteria is incorrect whist being the best we've got and with full intention of correcting it when such a discovery is made."? That was my argument you didn't reply to.

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.

[fr0d0]

The point seems to have been missed, that this church's definition of marriage is the subject/ defence. Not the general definition. It would be descriminatory against that definition, and in that way an encroachment on its rights to act freely.

[Minimalist]

1.God is axiomatic, being the case its impossible to debate, its self evident.

Is Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny axiomatic, too?

Let me guess....the "god" which you insist is REAL is the one you worship and not any of the other thousands of gods which mankind has invented throughout the course of the centuries to soothe his fears and answer his questions.

Your a real cultural dickhead, you know that.

[Gooders1002]

StatCrux, you have no Idea what its like to be gay, and not being able to marry the one you love the most. And saying that is a choice, it like I choose my skin colour or how tall I am or what biological gender I am. lets make you be first to have a second class civil partnership that is only recognised in 1/20 of the world if that.
You seriously don't know how lucky you are being born straight there's so many upsides. But would I change my sexuality? not on your life and no God will force me to be straight when i am not.

---

---

What utter rubbish.

1. Prove that your god is axiomatic and/or self-evident.
2. Argument was raised of awaiting knowledge regarding correct criteria - ignored.
3. Invalid example. The only thing the exception proved was that such a rule existed, not that the rule was valid. That argument was ignored.
4. Shows your poor grasp of language. "Possible within nature" is the definition of potential. Potential means "possible but not within existence, i.e. actual". So potential is not actual.
5. Repeated statement with no actual argument.
6. See point 2.
7. Misrepresenting the question asked.

You really fail at all levels of debate.

---

Check again. I've replied to everyone of your delusions, even going as far as to give you the benefit of the doubt.


You mean where I stated that "we may use the common criteria for distinguishing male and female genders (referring to the chromosome criteria or the sperm/egg criteria), with full knowledge that exceptions exist that prove that the criteria is incorrect whist being the best we've got and with full intention of correcting it when such a discovery is made."? That was my argument you didn't reply to.

---

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.

1. I already given you the definition of male and female earlier.
2. The criteria you wanted would be in the definitions.

[genkaus]

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.

Did you even read my argument? I gave the definition in it. And as expected, you ignored it.

[StatCrux]

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.

Did you even read my argument? I gave the definition in it. And as expected, you ignored it.

where? please show me your definition of male and female

[Gooders1002]

where? please show me your definition of male and female

You mean where I stated that "we may use the common criteria for distinguishing male and female genders (referring to the chromosome criteria or the sperm/egg criteria), with full knowledge that exceptions exist that prove that the criteria is incorrect whist being the best we've got and with full intention of correcting it when such a discovery is made."? That was my argument you didn't reply to. 

Is this good enought?

[genkaus]

where? please show me your definition of male and female

You mean where I stated that "we may use the common criteria for distinguishing male and female genders (referring to the chromosome criteria or the sperm/egg criteria), with full knowledge that exceptions exist that prove that the criteria is incorrect whist being the best we've got and with full intention of correcting it when such a discovery is made."? That was my argument you didn't reply to. 

Is this good enought?

Thnx Gooders.

[Gooders1002]

Is this good enought?

Thnx Gooders.

np