Choice

Gay people also have anatomy for sexual intimacy.
Gay is sexual attraction. Two gay people only have the anatomy if one is a man and the other is a woman. You are blinded by your ideology
Indeed almost everybody does.
Well everyone is a man or a woman or intersex, few are 'gay' So no, another false claim

Which leaves reproduction, which in the era of IVF, surrogacy, adoption and Turkey blasters, leaves no argument at all. Which is what we have been saying you have for a long time now.
IVF needs the male sperm and the female ovum. Done this simple biology lesson for you already.
There ARE two sexes , with compatible anatomy for sexual intimacy and reproduction, get used to the reality
 
When you have nothing else at all, resort to primary school playground insults to show off how "clever" you are. Even that isn't original.
When in your obsession you cant acknowledge reality and peddle a lie, playground insults triggers you I see.
 
Definitions are arbitrary
Only in a descriptive dictionary. This isn't the case in prescriptive dictionaries.
you must prove that this "correct" definition is correct.
Please prove that marriage = "one man, one woman", objectively.
The definition of the term "marry" comes from a Latin word which means "to impregnate", and this is precisely and historically what the church and the state have been doing for thousands of years. Redefining the term doesn't make it so. Two men cannot impregnate each other. Two women cannot impregnate each other. That is an empirical objective fact. Q.E.D.
You act as though "one man, one woman" is a law of physics, or something - why?
Where is this objectivity coming from?
The definition of the word, and the historical, biological objective fact.
This is a slippery slope fallacy; there would still be provisions for things like age of consent, and mental capacity.
Sure, but these are to prevent pregnancies from occurring. That's not an issue with oxymoronic notions like gay marriage.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BMS
Only in a descriptive dictionary. This isn't the case in prescriptive dictionaries.
"Prescriptive dictionary"?

Non-technical dictionaries are not prescriptive.
The definition of the term "marry" comes from a Latin word which means "to impregnate", and this is precisely and historically what the church and the state have been doing for thousands of years.
Lots of words have usages that are now completely divorced (pun intended) from their etymologies.

"It started out meaning <X>" does not establish objectivity, or "correctness", whatever that means.
 
"Prescriptive dictionary"?
Correct.
Non-technical dictionaries are not prescriptive.
False.
True, but only within descriptive dictionaries. This isn't the case with those who understand the original, primary, historical, and cultural purpose of marriage. There is no law preventing people from fulfilling the original, and primary biological as well as social purpose of marriage.
"It started out meaning <X>" does not establish objectivity,
When an institution begins sanctioning pregnancies, then that's exactly what it being established. They are synonymous terms. e.g.:
official permission or approval for an action:
"he appealed to the bishop for his sanction"
synonyms
authorization · consent · leave · permission · authority · warrant · license · dispensation · assent · acquiescence · agreement · approval · seal/stamp of approval · approbation · recognition · endorsement · accreditation · confirmation · ratification · validation · blessing · imprimatur · clearance · acceptance · allowance · permit
or "correctness", whatever that means.
cor·rect
[kəˈrekt]

ADJECTIVE

  1. free from error; in accordance with fact or truth:
 
Correct.

False.

True, but only within descriptive dictionaries. This isn't the case with those who understand the original, primary, historical, and cultural purpose of marriage. There is no law preventing people from fulfilling the original, and primary biological as well as social purpose of marriage.

When an institution begins sanctioning pregnancies, then that's exactly what it being established. They are synonymous terms. e.g.:
official permission or approval for an action:
"he appealed to the bishop for his sanction"
synonyms
authorization · consent · leave · permission · authority · warrant · license · dispensation · assent · acquiescence · agreement · approval · seal/stamp of approval · approbation · recognition · endorsement · accreditation · confirmation · ratification · validation · blessing · imprimatur · clearance · acceptance · allowance · permit

cor·rect
[kəˈrekt]

ADJECTIVE

  1. free from error; in accordance with fact or truth:
So, your argument is

"marriage must involve procreation because the word comes from a Latin word for procreation"

?
 
So, your argument is

"marriage must involve procreation because the word comes from a Latin word for procreation"

?
No. Historically, the Church and State discovered that they had a common goal of building healthy productive families which are the foundation of a healthy society, but more specifically a healthy productive Church and State. So the church began to sanction pregnancies, but not just any pregnancies. They investigated those wishing to enter into this institution as well as their families, friends, etc. because their goal is to build alliances that are going to benefit and build both the church and state society, and they can't do this until they sanction the pregnancies. The term used is "marriage; marry" which literally means "to impregnate".

They are prescribing pregnancies. They are not describing something else and attributing it to pregnancies, or claiming it is somehow synonymous to something they're not sanctioning at all and has nothing to do with getting pregnant.
 
So, your argument is

"marriage must involve procreation because the word comes from a Latin word for procreation"

?
If one doesnt include the potential for procreation then one has ignored the most significant difference. This is why same sex coupling as marriage under the pretext of equality, isnt equality
 
No one owns their bodies.
Simply put—you don’t own your body because you didn’t make it.
God made everything which includes the human body.
Therefore God gets to decide what people do with the body.
God says all people will one day be required to give account for everything that God has loaned them to use for his purposes
 
God made everything which includes the human body.
Nope.

My parents made my original body, but that body was gone by the time I was age 15. No cell from my 1 day old body remained in the 15 year old me. Since then, I've been the primary decider as to what went into - and eventually became - me.

No sign of any god trying to claim ownership. Indeed, there's no sign anywhere that gods are deciding what happens to us. There's only us making the decisions.

Since possession is nine tenth's of the law, we possess our own bodies. If God disagrees, he's welcome to testify to that effect in a court of law.
 
Last edited:
Nope.

My parents made my original body, but that body was gone by the time I was age 15. No cell from my 1 day old body remained in the 15 year old me. Since then, I've been the primary decider as to what went into - and eventually became - me.

No sign of any god trying to claim ownership. Indeed, there's no sign anywhere that gods are deciding what happens to us. There's only us making the decisions.

Since possession is nine tenth's of the law, we possess our own bodies. If God disagrees, he's welcome to testify to that effect in a court of law.
Lets be clear, your biological parents.
Also lets be clear that if you had XY chromosomes, male anatomy and male reproductive organs you will always be male.
So like the gender identity thing, why cant you also imagine there were 1 day old cells in your 15 year old body?
 
Nope.

My parents made my original body, but that body was gone by the time I was age 15. No cell from my 1 day old body remained in the 15 year old me. Since then, I've been the primary decider as to what went into - and eventually became - me.
MikeT, your parents made your original body⁉️
If all your cells have been “replaced” why do you still have your original memory of your parents “making you” in their laboratory
MikeT, most kids by the time they reach their teen years stop believing stories about Santa Claus and the big stork making their kid’s body by the time they reach their teens but you’re still holding on to the stories your parents told you‼️🤣😂
Ok MikeT, did your parents make you outa play clay in their laboratory⁉️😂🤣
No sign of any god trying to claim ownership. Indeed, there's no sign anywhere that gods are deciding what happens to us. There's only us making the decisions.
MikeT, denial helps you only until people like me come along and give you a dose of reality and then you have start over
Since possession is nine tenth's of the law, we possess our own bodies. If God disagrees, he's welcome to testify to that effect in a court of law.
You don’t seem convinced. Are you still trying to convince yourself⁉
 
"My Body My Choice"
Is this a right for all women?
In every day society we do have the ability to chose, but we can forfeit that ability when we make poor choices, when we choose foolishly.
If I choose to steal, then I get arrested and if I'm put in jail I lose that ability to chose because of my foolish choices.

And it's not even a social construct but "written into" nature. If I choose to walk in front of a bus, I lose my ability to make other choices.
It's also something that takes time to witness. For example, if a person gets drunk, they may get away with it. But after a while consequences do arise.

So two things with this. 1. Are there things that if a person chooses poorly then they DON'T lose the ability to make future choices?
2. Should this apply even in some cases to abortion. Where under certain circumstances a woman should not have the ability to chose because they are foolish and make bad choices? If not, why does it seem like this topic is exempt when so many other scenarios aren't?

I hope that I was clear. If there's anything that wasn't please let me know.

This will never come down to facts, reasonable argument, and reasonable conclusions.

For the pro-abortion side, their personal desires will always trump facts, reasonable argument, and reasonable conclusions. When that happens all you will get in response to facts and reasonable argument is confirmation bias spin. And that is what people do when they find facts and reason to be inconvenient to their personal desires. Their personal desires always trump facts which do not suit them and they resort to confirmation bias spin.

And you just end up going around in circles with these people like a dog chasing his tail. But that's what they want - no resolution to facts and reason.
 
Nope.

My parents made my original body, but that body was gone by the time I was age 15. No cell from my 1 day old body remained in the 15 year old me. Since then, I've been the primary decider as to what went into - and eventually became - me.

No sign of any god trying to claim ownership. Indeed, there's no sign anywhere that gods are deciding what happens to us. There's only us making the decisions.

Since possession is nine tenth's of the law, we possess our own bodies. If God disagrees, he's welcome to testify to that effect in a court of law.
yes of course but nonetheless all the cells in your body contain the same DNA that you inherited from your parents, including the chromosomes ;-)
Furthermore, you dont have any of the cells you had when you were a child. So do you think you have ever been a child?
It also means of course that as a man, if you called yourself a 'transwoman' or a 'transspecies' it would be meaningless
 
This will never come down to facts, reasonable argument, and reasonable conclusions.

For the pro-abortion side, their personal desires will always trump facts, reasonable argument, and reasonable conclusions. When that happens all you will get in response to facts and reasonable argument is confirmation bias spin. And that is what people do when they find facts and reason to be inconvenient to their personal desires. Their personal desires always trump facts which do not suit them and they resort to confirmation bias spin.

And you just end up going around in circles with these people like a dog chasing his tail. But that's what they want - no resolution to facts and reason.
You are mistaken. Reasonableness can prevail. In most western countries it as already, with abortion as a pressing issue being settled decades ago . But for the reasonable voices to be heard, compromise on both sides must be accepted. The extreme positions must be abandoned. The notion that a woman has the comply right to an abortion for any reason right up to the point of birth, is not reasonable. Neither is the notion that there is a person with full human rights present in the womb from the moment of conception.

Your description fits both sides. "Their personal desires will always trump facts, reasonable argument, and reasonable conclusions. When that happens all you will get in response to facts and reasonable argument is confirmation bias spin. And that is what people do when they find facts and reason to be inconvenient to their personal desires. Their personal desires always trump facts which do not suit them and they resort to confirmation bias spin." Posts reflecting exactly these tendencies can be found here supporting both the Pro- choice and the Pro-life arguments. The real failure, in my view, is the unwillingness to accept that a reasonable and sincere person can honestly take a view that is contrary to ones own. Yet this is the case. There are sincere and honest people on both sides. To solve the controversy, perhaps those sincere and honest voices need to turn on the extremists on their own side of the fence, and get them to pipe down so that reasonable dialogue can commence.
 
You are mistaken.
You are badly mistaken.

Reasonableness can prevail.
Seems it cant.

In most western countries it as already, with abortion as a pressing issue being settled decades ago.
Obviously not since certain states in the US have all but banned abortion. Check your facts before making misleading generalisations

But for the reasonable voices to be heard, compromise on both sides must be accepted.
So would you allow the red states their abortion laws?

The extreme positions must be abandoned.
So which are they then? Take the US, red states and blue states each with their own abortion laws. I think you are posturing as to which laws you personally think are extreme.

The notion that a woman has the comply right to an abortion for any reason right up to the point of birth, is not reasonable.
Not quite sure what you mean by 'the comply right' but I think in the UK Downs offspring can be aborted up to birth. Check your facts before making misleading generalisations

Neither is the notion that there is a person with full human rights present in the womb from the moment of conception.
Not so with the Offense Against the Person Act. Check your facts before making misleading generalisations
 
You are mistaken. Reasonableness can prevail.

This requires reasonable people. Not many of those around.

In most western countries it as already, with abortion as a pressing issue being settled decades ago . But for the reasonable voices to be heard, compromise on both sides must be accepted. The extreme positions must be abandoned. The notion that a woman has the comply right to an abortion for any reason right up to the point of birth, is not reasonable. Neither is the notion that there is a person with full human rights present in the womb from the moment of conception.

Your description fits both sides. "Their personal desires will always trump facts, reasonable argument, and reasonable conclusions. When that happens all you will get in response to facts and reasonable argument is confirmation bias spin. And that is what people do when they find facts and reason to be inconvenient to their personal desires. Their personal desires always trump facts which do not suit them and they resort to confirmation bias spin." Posts reflecting exactly these tendencies can be found here supporting both the Pro- choice and the Pro-life arguments. The real failure, in my view, is the unwillingness to accept that a reasonable and sincere person can honestly take a view that is contrary to ones own. Yet this is the case. There are sincere and honest people on both sides. To solve the controversy, perhaps those sincere and honest voices need to turn on the extremists on their own side of the fence, and get them to pipe down so that reasonable dialogue can commence.
 
Back
Top