Same sex marriage

[genkaus]

Same sex unions are not procreative in principal.

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.

[KichigaiNeko]

Well of course it doesn't Crux....it is NOT fitting in with YOUR idealism. You just can't live in a flexible world can you??

[genkaus]

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.

Finally. You are extremely slow on the uptake, but you get there eventually.

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!

That's ironic, considering that the track here is supposed to be same-sex marriage and you are the one throwing in the red-herrings about morality and male-female distinctions.

[Zen Badger]

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.

The question of reproductivity is irrelevant in this day and age.

There are too many fucking people as it is!!!!

We don't need any more

If two people want to spend the rest of their lifes together as a married couple regardless of their race, gender or car preference then it is no-ones fucking business but theirs.

Gay marriage is not going to destroy society.

It is not going to end the world.

It will not lead to people marrying their pets.

It will mean an equal go for LGBT people, which all they ever fucking wanted in the first place.

And if you can't cope with that, then fuck off back to the 14th century.

Because the 21st doesn't need your bigoted bullshit.

---

BTW Genkaus, this rant isn't directed at you.

[StatCrux]

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.

[genkaus]

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.

The question of reproductivity is irrelevant in this day and age.

There are too many fucking people as it is!!!!

We don't need any more

If two people want to spend the rest of their lifes together as a married couple regardless of their race, gender or car preference then it is no-ones fucking business but theirs.

Gay marriage is not going to destroy society.

It is not going to end the world.

It will not lead to people marrying their pets.

It will mean an equal go for LGBT people, which all they ever fucking wanted in the first place.

And if you can't cope with that, then fuck off back to the 14th century.

Because the 21st doesn't need your bigoted bullshit.

---

BTW Genkaus, this rant isn't directed at you.

Nice save.

---

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.

What you have been saying from the start is that exceptions don't prove that the criteria is wrong. Invalidating the rule means proving that the rule is wrong. The incorrect rule is applicable if and only if the correct one is not available. In case of marriage, the correct one is applicable and in fact applied and yet you continue to use the outdated and wrong one. Your rule has both been invalidated and discarded.

[Reforged]

Who cares? Honestly? If homosexuals want to marry then let them. If churches don't see fit to perform the ceremony then thats fine too. They'll lose potential clients and civil services will become more popular and I'm definitely ok with that.

[Zen Badger]

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.

[StatCrux]

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..

---

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.

[Zen Badger]

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..

---

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.

It's only hard work because you're no longer allowed to have us burnt at the stake for hearesy.