Same sex marriage

[StatCrux]

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 In case of marriage, the correct one is applicable and in fact applied and yet you continue to use the outdated and wrong one.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.

I think you're confusing the issue of marriage with procreation. The general rule we are discussing is the procreative nature of male-female unions.

"The incorrect rule is applicable if and only if the correct one is not available."Genkaus

What is the correct rule then regarding male-female procreation if the general rule that they ARE procreative is no longer valid?

This is so simple, male-female unions in principal are procreative same sex unions are not. Any fool can see the truth in that. Exceptions do not change that. An infertile woman does not alter the general rule that male-female unions are procreative, simple.

[genkaus]

Yes if your definition of union is external tampering by scientists....more of an unholy fusion I would say..

No, my definition of union is a civil contract between two people. But even if it included external tampering from the scientists, it wouldn't be "unholy" or immoral. If your criteria is that scientific interference in natural processes is immoral then all the fertility procedures, surrogacy and the medical care given to women throughout pregnancies and childbirth to prevent miscarriages would be immoral as well.

Oh dear...This is hard work..It's Genkaus that says the criteria is incorrect.

No, Genkaus says that your criteria is incorrect. Ours is just fine.

[StatCrux]

It seems obvious to me that you are happy to keep the male/female definition despite the fact that exceptions exist but are unwilling to keep the male-female unions are procreative in principal despite the fact that exceptions exist. You want it both ways

[Zen Badger]

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 In case of marriage, the correct one is applicable and in fact applied and yet you continue to use the outdated and wrong one.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.

I think you're confusing the issue of marriage with procreation. The general rule we are discussing is the procreative nature of male-female unions.

"The incorrect rule is applicable if and only if the correct one is not available."Genkaus

What is the correct rule then regarding male-female procreation if the general rule that they ARE procreative is no longer valid?

This is so simple, male-female unions in principal are procreative same sex unions are not. Any fool can see the truth in that. Exceptions do not change that. An infertile woman does not alter the general rule that male-female unions are procreative, simple.

You can bandy semantics around all you like.

The simple fact is that outside of your bible you have not one valid objection to same sex marriage, not one.

And as a source of guidance on anything the bible sucks bigtime.

[StatCrux]

No, Genkaus says that your criteria is incorrect. Ours is just fine.

WTF! You explicity said that the criteria for male and female was incorrect!


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



I haven't given any criteria for male or female.

[Zen Badger]

No, Genkaus says that your criteria is incorrect. Ours is just fine.

WTF! You explicity said that the criteria for male and female was incorrect!



I haven't given any criteria for male or female.

But your criteria is implied in your professed belief.

The man is the Boss and the woman is his property.

That is obvious.

[StatCrux]

But your criteria is implied in your professed belief.

The man is the Boss and the woman is his property.

That is obvious.

What on Gods good earth has that got to do with definitions of male and female? We're talking about medical definitions.

[genkaus]

I think you're confusing the issue of marriage with procreation. The general rule we are discussing is the procreative nature of male-female unions.

"The incorrect rule is applicable if and only if the correct one is not available."Genkaus

What is the correct rule then regarding male-female procreation if the general rule that they ARE procreative is no longer valid?

This is so simple, male-female unions in principal are procreative same sex unions are not. Any fool can see the truth in that. Exceptions do not change that. An infertile woman does not alter the general rule that male-female unions are procreative, simple.

Moving the goalposts now are we? You are the one who has been arguing marriage based on procreation and now suddenly they are two different issues. No matter. Let's go step by step here.

Rule: Male-female unions are procreative.

Exception: Infertile male-female unions are not.

New Rule: Only male-female unions can be procreative.

Exception: With emerging technology, it is possible to reproduce asexually (cloning) or with same-sex partners.

New Rule: A human being can procreate.

Now, justify why we should use procreation as the basis for defining marriage?

---

It seems obvious to me that you are happy to keep the male/female definition despite the fact that exceptions exist but are unwilling to keep the male-female unions are procreative in principal despite the fact that exceptions exist. You want it both ways

It is obvious to me that we are willing to change our minds about male/female definition as soon as a better one comes along, while you are so close-minded and bigoted that you are not willing to change your definition of marriage even though a better one is already available.

---

WTF! You explicity said that the criteria for male and female was incorrect!


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



I haven't given any criteria for male or female.

That point was regarding your definition of marriage, not male/female, you moron.

[StatCrux]

Rule: Male-female unions are procreative.

Exception: Infertile male-female unions are not.

New Rule: Only male-female unions can be procreative.

Exception: With emerging technology, it is possible to reproduce asexually (cloning) or with same-sex partners.

New Rule: A human being can procreate.

That isn't my position and you know it.

Rule: Male-Female unions are procreative in principal

Exception: None

Rule: Same sex relationships are not procreative in principal (Ie without recourse to artificial intervention)

Exception: None

[KichigaiNeko]