Choice

BMS

Well-known member
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.
Wrong. In effect any pairing other than man woman is dysfunctional as described. Contradiction doesnt change that
 

BMS

Well-known member
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.
What do you understand by 'two' then?
 

BMS

Well-known member
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 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.
Seeing as you have a problem it makes it very difficult to kniw what you are imagining.
 

BMS

Well-known member
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.
So what do you understand by 'two' Termujin? You didnt answer the question. Ypi asked me and I told you.
You gave subsequently posted about pairing.
What do you understand by 'pairing' ?
 

BMS

Well-known member
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.
What do you understand by sophistry?
 

Electric Skeptic

Well-known member
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.
Okay, thanks for the clarification. Just a reminder - the same thing has been done to just about every other religion.

And the left isn't attempting to do anything to "the Church". There are millions upon millions of people in "the Church" who are on the left.
 

Electric Skeptic

Well-known member
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?
By the same token, who says reproduction has to have anything to do with marriage?
See--this is where your skepticism comes back to bite you. This is ultimately why skepticism is incoherent and self-refuting.
except that skepticism has nothing to do with this issue, nor is it either incoherent or self-refuting.
 

Electric Skeptic

Well-known member
No, a man.
And a woman.
On the contrary
nwrt
In the way described. You have never been able to refute most of what we say because its observable reality
In no way. What you (not 'we' - just you) say has been repeatedly refuted.

So if you correspond with someone you write to yourself do you?
We're back to you not knowing that words can have multiple meanings again?

There are two sexes with corresponding anatomy for sexual intimacy and reproduction whether you have a problem with that reality or not.

cor·re·spond·ing​

(kôr′ĭ-spŏn′dĭng, kŏr′-)
adj.
1. Having the same or nearly the same relationship.

People with corresponding anatomy to you are people with the SAME anatomy as you.

You as a man have corresponding anatomy with every other man.

'Corresponding' does NOT mean 'complementary'.

There are two sexes which have complementary anatomy which enables sexual intercourse leading to reproduction.

There are two sexes and the members of each sex have corresponding anatomy to each other.

Seeing as you have a problem it makes it very difficult to kniw what you are imagining.
I'm not the one with a problem - it's you who can't use the dictionary.
 

Electric Skeptic

Well-known member
This is very evasive.

Can you characterize the life of an XX person without circularly referring to womanhood?
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?
 

Eightcrackers

Well-known member
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?
Because they might as well call themselves a jhdfiodhs, if we don't know what it means.


If nouns don't point to concepts, what good are they?

What does "woman (gender)" mean?
 

Electric Skeptic

Well-known member
Because they might as well call themselves a jhdfiodhs, if we don't know what it means.
But we do know what it means.

If nouns don't point to concepts, what good are they?
None at all. But this one does.

What does "woman (gender)" mean?
Mate, I've answered this any number of times.

Again, if someone calls themselves a woman (gender), they are one.

Why is a more precise definition needed? There are myriad terms that don't have an exact definition that we all use just fine. 'Child'. 'Adult'. 'Car'. 'Truck'. Why does 'woman' need such a precise definition but these terms (and others like them) don't?
 

romishpopishorganist

Well-known member
By the same token, who says reproduction has to have anything to do with marriage?
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.

except that skepticism has nothing to do with this issue, nor is it either incoherent or self-refuting.
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.

If we should reject the assumptions in which I am arguing, I see no reason to accept the assumptions on which you are arguing.
 

romishpopishorganist

Well-known member
And the law has been changed. Technically, you are wrong.
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?

If we were to say--in 100 years---move backwards and decide gays can no longer get "married" would that be wrong? Would that be a step in the wrong direction? Would that be a sign of de-evolution from your view?
 

romishpopishorganist

Well-known member
Ah - so before slaves had rights, they weren't discriminated against because the law said they weren't?
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.
Same with women, before they had the right to vote?
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.

And before you post back with "But, but, but wait a minute! Subjective morality does not mean no morality! Just becasue I think morality is subjective, that does not entail I think there is no morality."

You are missing the point. Subjective morality means in the end that things like racism, discrimination, hatred, bigotry, etc, in and of themselves--those are morally neutral. Whether something is or is not racist--does not depend on the act in and of itself, but solely depends on the whims of society. We are in no position to judge the past. During times of slavery---that was neither right nor wrong---objectively speaking. It is only wrong from the perspective of today where society has decided slavery is bad. If in 100 years, we bring back slavery, then slavery would be good. I know darn well you do not believe that. Rightly so. Neither do I.

I believe things like racism are objectively evil and wrong--whether or not society collectively recognizes it or not. When I fight racism, I am not just fighting for my subjective moral values, but truth itself. For me, fighting against things like racism--means I am fighting a grave moral injustice. This must be done whether society agrees or not, whether fighting racism is popular or not.
 

shnarkle

Well-known member
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.
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BMS
Top