NwrtThis "contribution is
1. Irrelevant
2. Rudely butting in to someone else's conversation.
3. Completely meaningless as written.
4. If amended to say what I suspect you mean, extremely stupid.
NwrtThis "contribution is
1. Irrelevant
2. Rudely butting in to someone else's conversation.
3. Completely meaningless as written.
4. If amended to say what I suspect you mean, extremely stupid.
Sorry, yes:Nwrt
On what basis, aside from your own subjective beliefs do you make this assertion?Yes.
The point is if--we get the government out of the marriage business and just let people decide for themselves what marriage is--and then make their choices according to their own standards---then we no longer have the problem of discrimination.Except that some gays want the government version.
I doubt that I will ever vote in my life, but I still want the right to vote, and would consider it disciminatory, were I denied it.
And, on that note, imagine if the goverment, for some reason, did not count any votes but those for one candidate, and it's the one you would never vote for - would
"You're not being disriminated against - you have just as much right to vote for John Borden as anybody else"
make it not discriminatory?
There is no other basis upon which I, in common with everyone else, can make this assertion.On what basis, aside from your own subjective beliefs do you make this assertion?
You are making your pitch in the wrong place. Write to your congressman.The point is if--we get the government out of the marriage business and just let people decide for themselves what marriage is--and then make their choices according to their own standards---then we no longer have the problem of discrimination.
If the government is not involved in marriages, it is sort of hard to change the government with discrimination.
Wait--you want to quibble over terminology? You wan to tell me that what I am talking about---isn't skepticism, but something else?Except that the government IS a part of it. It legislates any number of things regarding marriage. Given that, why should same-sex marriage be exempted?
That's not skepticism.
That's not skepticism either.
Churches are different. The government cannot force churches to condone marriages they feel are immoral or otherwise not marriages.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.
And if the government opens the definition of marriage to include gay marriage, discrimination also goes away.The point is if--we get the government out of the marriage business and just let people decide for themselves what marriage is--and then make their choices according to their own standards---then we no longer have the problem of discrimination.
If the government is not involved in marriages, it is sort of hard to change the government with discrimination.
No nwrtSorry, yes:
5. Nwrt.
Why am I opposed to the redefinition of reality to something it isn't?And if the government opens the definition of marriage to include gay marriage, discrimination also goes away.
I think we would agree that it is extremely unlikely for the government to get out of marriage altogether, why not open the door?
What harm would it do? Why are you so opposed to it?
Well we have given the reasons we are opposed, but I would say the issue is it should be something like civil partnership to distinguish it from marriage because its significantly differentAnd if the government opens the definition of marriage to include gay marriage, discrimination also goes away.
I think we would agree that it is extremely unlikely for the government to get out of marriage altogether, why not open the door?
What harm would it do? Why are you so opposed to it?
Definitions are arbitrary - marriage is whatever we say it is.Why am I opposed to the redefinition of reality to something it isn't?
2 + 2 = 4 can be proven objectively; see Russell & Whitehead's Principia Mathematica.For the same reason a mathematician would be opposed to redefining 2+2=4- 2+2=5.
You act as though "one man, one woman" is a law of physics, or something - why?You can't just redefine reality through legislation
Only under the "one man, one woman" definition.Gay marriage is an oxymoron. Period. It is a contradiction in terms.
This is a slippery slope fallacy; there would still be provisions for things like age of consent, and mental capacity.As I said, sir, if we can redefine marriage to include gays--becasue--reasons, then we have no basis upon which to deny anyone marriage to whatever or whomever with how many ever they want--becasue--same reasons.
They can force churches to pay for abortifacients which the church deems immoral. This has forced churches out of business running thrift stores, hospitals etc. The government can just as easily force churches to cease discriminating against homosexuals by not marrying them. This will probably happen within the court system.Churches are different. The government cannot force churches to condone marriages they feel are immoral or otherwise not marriages.
So the government gets out of the marriage business altogether and leaves it to the citizens individual beliefs and or their religion to figure out what marriage is for themselves.
Thus, churches that want to marry polygamous couples (the Mormons) are free to do so according to the dictates of their religion.
Agreed, but as I already pointed out, no one has to abide or recognize these marriages due to the fact that the government has gotten out of the marriage validation business. This doesn't just extend to churches either. The guy who is married to a dog or his pet rock cannot claim his spouse as another passenger in his car and drive in the carpool lane without getting a ticket. Some states have laws against bestiality that would preclude the man/dog marriage from being consummated without being in violation of those laws.Churches that want to marry gay couples may do so. Churches that marry only heterosexuals may do so. People that want to marry their car or a tree may do so too. People who want to marry their parents or their cousins may do so.
Then so is everything else. Everything is subjective. See--here goes your skepticism again.Definitions are arbitrary - marriage is whatever we say it is.
There is. Definitions should reflect reality.You're acting as though there is some "correct" definition - if this is to be the basis of your objection, you must prove that this "correct" definition is correct.
Just like gender is objective--but that does not stop people from redefining what it is to be a woman or a man.2 + 2 = 4 can be proven objectively; see Russell & Whitehead's Principia Mathematica.
Okay. Objectively speaking, does a gay relationship even have the CAPACITY for reproduction? NO. Does a heterosexual relationship? YES.Please prove that marriage = "one man, one woman", objectively.
The nature of the relationship--that is objective.You act as though "one man, one woman" is a law of physics, or something - why? Where is this objectivity coming from?
No. However---note that you are comparing apples and oranges.Also, is interracial marriage legal? Has it always been so?
Huh? You mean historically, there was a time when societies recognized the marriage of homosexuals?Marriage has been redefined before.
No, fallacy sir. The argument is not "If we allow gay marriage, therefore polygamy, incest, etc, will happen."This is a slippery slope fallacy; there would still be provisions for things like age of consent, and mental capacity.
no one can prove it. However as I keep pointing out, the existence of the two sexes with corresponding anatomy is an objectively sound reason for man/womanDefinitions are arbitrary - marriage is whatever we say it is.
You're acting as though there is some "correct" definition - if this is to be the basis of your objection, you must prove that this "correct" definition is correct.
2 + 2 = 4 can be proven objectively; see Russell & Whitehead's Principia Mathematica.
Please prove that marriage = "one man, one woman", objectively.
You act as though "one man, one woman" is a law of physics, or something - why?
Where is this objectivity coming from?
Also, is interracial marriage legal?
Has it always been so?
Marriage has been redefined before.
Only under the "one man, one woman" definition.
Prove that this is the "correct" definition.
This is a slippery slope fallacy; there would still be provisions for things like age of consent, and mental capacity.
No, it's not.If you want me to refer to you as a woman, when you're genetically male, it's very much my business.
"Ok"."Call me a woman because I think I am a woman."
Bahahahahaha. Conservative so-called 'Christians' look at nothing but the politics.The NT teachings of Jesus tend to lend themselves to some of what we call capitalism and socialism. Christians look at the teachings, not the politics
You're butting in again (implied is that you are doing so without even bothering to get the context).In the human species a man and the woman unite in sexual intimacy and conceice and offspring, and then raise. Its what has always happened and has always been seen as marriage and yet you ask what has it got to do with marriage.
So what? Yes, it's different from same sex coupling. So what? Why should that exclude it from marriage?Its the most significant logical rational observable criterion to marriage that makes it distinct from same sex coupling.
Yeah, lots of other arguments needed.No other argument needed
This has been addressed any number of times - we ARE communicating. Your claims that we can't are obvious nonsense.Because if use a different meaning to words how do we communicate?
Terminology? No. Meanings of words. You complain about skepticism and make claims about it, and cite things that have nothing to do with skepticism.Wait--you want to quibble over terminology? You wan to tell me that what I am talking about---isn't skepticism, but something else?
Yup.Yet when it comes to what is a woman or what is man--you do not quibble over terms, do you? If a transgender woman (biological woman) claims to be a man, you don't say "You are not a man." You say "Well, if you identify as a man, and after surgery, look like a man, you must be a man. Who am I to question?"
Sorry, not how it works.Why not just apply that same logic here? It is skepticism becasue I identified it as skepticism; therefore, it is.
Complementary, not corresponding. You have corresponding anatomy with other biological males.no one can prove it. However as I keep pointing out, the existence of the two sexes with corresponding anatomy is an objectively sound reason for man/woman