On the contraryOn the contrary. It is Christianity that abandons reason. Leading Christians have specifically eschewed it.
On the contraryOn the contrary. It is Christianity that abandons reason. Leading Christians have specifically eschewed it.
Rubbish. You are in errorAnd the law has been changed. Technically, you are wrong.
Wrong. In effect any pairing other than man woman is dysfunctional as described. Contradiction doesnt change thatWrong. Some potential pairings are definitely bad for society as a whole. Incest and polygamy both carry significant risk of exploitation and abuse of the vulnerable. Still, make your argument. Let's see if voters agree with you.
Churches do this already, in addition to legal marriage.
I'm sure you have heard the term.
In the way described. You have never been able to refute most of what we say because its observable realityYou have never exposed any claim as false or deluded.
What do you understand by 'two' then?O look. Sophistry. How clever.
You have gone on and on. All you are doing is making an argument against marriage. Why do gay people want to get married? For exactly the same reason as straight couples. And now they can.
It isn't necessary for any relationship. Social recognition of pair bonding and commitment is necessary however. Some countries, including my own, trialed civil partnerships. A sort of marriage lite for the gay under class. They didn’t work. Marriage does. It hurts no one. It benefits many. The ship has sailed. Move on.
So if you correspond with someone you write to yourself do you?You are failing to understand the phrase "corresponding anatomy". You as a biological male have corresponding anatomy with everyone else on the planet who is a biological male. Corresponding here means 'same'.
So what do you understand by 'two' Termujin? You didnt answer the question. Ypi asked me and I told you.Wrong. Some potential pairings are definitely bad for society as a whole. Incest and polygamy both carry significant risk of exploitation and abuse of the vulnerable. Still, make your argument. Let's see if voters agree with you.
Churches do this already, in addition to legal marriage.
I'm sure you have heard the term.
You dont understand the law as we have seenAnd the law has been changed. Technically, you are wrong.
What do you understand by sophistry?Wrong. Some potential pairings are definitely bad for society as a whole. Incest and polygamy both carry significant risk of exploitation and abuse of the vulnerable. Still, make your argument. Let's see if voters agree with you.
Churches do this already, in addition to legal marriage.
I'm sure you have heard the term.
Okay, thanks for the clarification. Just a reminder - the same thing has been done to just about every other religion.No.
What I meant was that------for 2022 years------governments have been trying to destroy Christianity. Governments have never succeeded--despite---the power they have. Christianity not only did not get stamped out, it got stronger. For the first 300 years, the Roman emperors persecuted Christians and attempted to destroy the religion. How did that work out? The Vatican is built on land where Christians were slaughtered.
So I just meant that the left needs to understand--everything they are attempting to do the Church has been tried already. We aren't going anywhere and we will not be intimidated or bullied by the left.
By the same token, who says reproduction has to have anything to do with marriage?Who says love has to have anything to do with marriage? On what basis should we assume that love is what makes a marriage or that someone should have the right to marry someone they LOVE? The right to marry is given equally to homosexuals and heterosexuals. Whether they can marry someone they love--why should we assume love has to have anything to do with it?
except that skepticism has nothing to do with this issue, nor is it either incoherent or self-refuting.See--this is where your skepticism comes back to bite you. This is ultimately why skepticism is incoherent and self-refuting.
And a woman.No, a man.
nwrtOn the contrary
In no way. What you (not 'we' - just you) say has been repeatedly refuted.In the way described. You have never been able to refute most of what we say because its observable reality
We're back to you not knowing that words can have multiple meanings again?So if you correspond with someone you write to yourself do you?
There are two sexes with corresponding anatomy for sexual intimacy and reproduction whether you have a problem with that reality or not.
I'm not the one with a problem - it's you who can't use the dictionary.Seeing as you have a problem it makes it very difficult to kniw what you are imagining.
I don't understand why you're trying to nail this down. It's a nebulous issue. Basically, if someone calls themselves a woman (gender), they are one. Why is a more precise definition needed?This is very evasive.
Can you characterize the life of an XX person without circularly referring to womanhood?
Because they might as well call themselves a jhdfiodhs, if we don't know what it means.I don't understand why you're trying to nail this down. It's a nebulous issue. Basically, if someone calls themselves a woman (gender), they are one. Why is a more precise definition needed?
But we do know what it means.Because they might as well call themselves a jhdfiodhs, if we don't know what it means.
None at all. But this one does.If nouns don't point to concepts, what good are they?
Mate, I've answered this any number of times.What does "woman (gender)" mean?
No one. But if the definition of marriage is subjective, then I say--let individuals define for themselves what it is to be married. The government need not be a part of it. Marriage is whatever the people involved say it is. Thus, if people want to marry a tree, a cat, whatever, fine. If people want polygamous relationships, fine. If people want to marry their car, fine. If people want marry their gay lover or their heterosexual lover, fine. Whatever floats one's boat.By the same token, who says reproduction has to have anything to do with marriage?
Yes it does and it is self-refuting. Because if you can question the assumptions under which I am arguing, I can do the same to you.except that skepticism has nothing to do with this issue, nor is it either incoherent or self-refuting.
Is that a positive development--that is---were they wrong before to deny gay couples the "right" to be "married?" Now that gays can be "married" would you say this is an advancement--a product of a more "enlightened" society?And the law has been changed. Technically, you are wrong.
Actually--they were. But then again---I am not the moral relativist here. YOU are. As I keep telling you--you do not get to have your cake and eat it too.Ah - so before slaves had rights, they weren't discriminated against because the law said they weren't?
Yes---but again, I am not the moral relativist. I am not the one asserting that things like this are morally neutral and only depend on what society collectively determines. You are the one asserting that.Same with women, before they had the right to vote?
I agree, but only insofar as the government needn't validate marriage. The problem is that nobody has to accept anyone else's definition either. For example, the word "marry" comes from a Latin word which means "to impregnate" so all a church has to do is point out that they're sanctioning marriages to become absolved from any claims to homophobia, hatred of homosexuals, transgendered etc.No one. But if the definition of marriage is subjective, then I say--let individuals define for themselves what it is to be married. The government need not be a part of it. Marriage is whatever the people involved say it is. Thus, if people want to marry a tree, a cat, whatever, fine. If people want polygamous relationships, fine. If people want to marry their car, fine. If people want marry their gay lover or their heterosexual lover, fine. Whatever floats one's boat.