Same sex marriage

[Shell B]

Still haven't cracked the there, their and they're thing eh....

Comma before "eh," if you please.

[Cyberman]

As a question, it also requires a question mark.

"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.

It used to be the law to send children up chimneys and to work in factories, too. National Service was law for some time as well. Why aren't we doing those things anymore? You get three guesses...

And as others have pointed out, the RCC in particular has long since forfeited the right to prescribe to others how to behave; especially here in Britain since ol' Henry VIII told the Pope where to stick his crozier.

[StatCrux]

As a question, it also requires a question mark.

It isn't a question, it's a statement

---

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.

As far as I can see this seems to be your attempt at giving a definition for male and female, am I correct?
Lets look at what your really saying.

"we may use the common criteria for distinguishing male and female genders (referring to the chromosome criteria or the sperm/egg criteria)"

So here you are accepting that there is a general rule for distinguishing male and female. Good so far.

"with full knowledge that exceptions exist that prove that the criteria is incorrect"

so now you refer to the exceptions to the general rule (AIS for example). So we already know about these exceptions, now, at this moment in time. They are not discoveries yet to be made, we know about them NOW.

Finally,

"whist being the best we've got and with full intention of correcting it when such a discovery is made"

so you have full intention of correcting the general rule when such a discovery is made? Well my question still stands, such a discovery has been made already, so in your own words you must amend the general rule, that is what I'm asking from you. Please give a definition of male and female, taking into account the present discoveries with regard to sexuality. All that you have said is "well there's this kinda definition that we use but it's wrong really, but I'm not gonna give you the correct one" how is that answering the question?

[Gooders1002]

As a question, it also requires a question mark.

It isn't a question, it's a statement

---

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.

As far as I can see this seems to be your attempt at giving a definition for male and female, am I correct?
Lets look at what your really saying.

"we may use the common criteria for distinguishing male and female genders (referring to the chromosome criteria or the sperm/egg criteria)"

So here you are accepting that there is a general rule for distinguishing male and female. Good so far.

"with full knowledge that exceptions exist that prove that the criteria is incorrect"

so now you refer to the exceptions to the general rule (AIS for example). So we already know about these exceptions, now, at this moment in time. They are not discoveries yet to be made, we know about them NOW.

Finally,

"whist being the best we've got and with full intention of correcting it when such a discovery is made"

so you have full intention of correcting the general rule when such a discovery is made? Well my question still stands, such a discovery has been made already, so in your own words you must amend the general rule, that is what I'm asking from you. Please give a definition of male and female, taking into account the present discoveries with regard to sexuality. All that you have said is "well there's this kinda definition that we use but it's wrong really, but I'm not gonna give you the correct one" how is that answering the question?

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?

[StatCrux]

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?

[genkaus]

As far as I can see this seems to be your attempt at giving a definition for male and female, am I correct?
Lets look at what your really saying.

"we may use the common criteria for distinguishing male and female genders (referring to the chromosome criteria or the sperm/egg criteria)"

So here you are accepting that there is a general rule for distinguishing male and female. Good so far.

"with full knowledge that exceptions exist that prove that the criteria is incorrect"

so now you refer to the exceptions to the general rule (AIS for example). So we already know about these exceptions, now, at this moment in time. They are not discoveries yet to be made, we know about them NOW.

Finally,

"whist being the best we've got and with full intention of correcting it when such a discovery is made"

so you have full intention of correcting the general rule when such a discovery is made? Well my question still stands, such a discovery has been made already, so in your own words you must amend the general rule, that is what I'm asking from you. Please give a definition of male and female, taking into account the present discoveries with regard to sexuality. All that you have said is "well there's this kinda definition that we use but it's wrong really, but I'm not gonna give you the correct one" how is that answering the question?

No, you moron, the discovery in question is the better criteria. That is the discovery that has not been made. The discovery does not refer to the "exceptions", but to the explanation of those exceptions. Can you understand that? What I ma actually saying is "well there's this kinda definition that we use but it's not completely correct really, but I cannot give you the correct one and that is the best we've got."

And as far as answering the question goes, it seems you have completely ignored the axiomicity of god and your principle-potential fallacy. I guess I'll take it as you conceding those arguments.

[Zen Badger]

Question Statcrux, are you a woman??

[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'

[genkaus]

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?

That is where you are mistaken. We accept the general rules in spite of exceptions if and only if no better option to that general rule is available. Even though the exceptions invalidate the rule, we often have to ignore them and treat that invalid definition as valid, simply because a better definition is not available. A good parallel here is Newtonian mechanics. Exceptions which did not fit the Newtonian model were known for a long time, but it was still used because we didn't have anything better. Once we got relativity, we started using that.

[StatCrux]

No, you moron, the discovery in question is the better criteria. That is the discovery that has not been made. The discovery does not refer to the "exceptions", but to the explanation of those exceptions. Can you understand that? What I ma actually saying is "well there's this kinda definition that we use but it's not completely correct really, but I cannot give you the correct one and that is the best we've got."

And as far as answering the question goes, it seems you have completely ignored the axiomicity of god and your principle-potential fallacy. I guess I'll take it as you conceding those arguments.

Give me strength.....The better criteria is what you are consistently failing to provide! Get it? Given our understanding of sexuality NOW why don't you tell me the better criteria if the present one is incorrect (as you are admitting) Basically you are saying our present criteria is wrong but have nothing better to offer. 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!

As to the other questions, as I've already stated, stay on track, this tactic of bouncing off topic onto a hundred questions then circling round from one to another doesn't wash!