Choice

Okay. Objectively speaking, does a gay relationship even have the CAPACITY for reproduction? NO. Does a heterosexual relationship? YES.
Prove that marriage is objectively defined in terms of reproduction.

Not just legally; objectively.
The nature of the relationship--that is objective.
Same question - why is marriage objectively defined in terms of reproduction?
The objection to inter-racial marriage was actually based on what marriage, by nature, is. The whole point was that becasue marriage, by nature, leads to the production of off-spring,
There you go again, acting as though there is some definition of marriage "embedded in nature", or something.

You are still yet to prove this.
The objection to gay marriage is different. No one is objecting to gay marriage becasue they are afraid of homosexuality, gay relationships, hatred of gays, the desire to discriminate against gays, etc.
If you truly believe this, you are incredibly naive.

If that's not your objection, fair enough. But to deny that there is a huge contingent of religiously-motivated opposition to gay marriage (impelled by homophobia, indeed) is simply not tenable.
The objection to gay marriage is based on the fact that marriage cannot be defined based on the whims of the government.
... why?
The objection to gay marriage is the exact same objection to polygamy, incest relationships, bestiality, etc: that isn't what a marriage IS.
And again, this unproven notion that there is something that marriage "is" that transcends alternative definition.
Still waiting for proof.
Huh? You mean historically, there was a time when societies recognized the marriage of homosexuals?
There was a time when it did not recognize interracial marriage.

Then, the definition changed, and now it does.
The argument is that------there is no basis NOT to allow any kind of relationship and call that a marriage.
Which is logically identical to

"there is a basis to allow any kind of relationship, and call it marriage."
 
Terminology? No. Meanings of words. You complain about skepticism and make claims about it, and cite things that have nothing to do with skepticism.
Says who? I identify you as a skeptic, therefore you are.

If I have to call a woman a man becasue the woman identifies as a man, why can't I identify you as a skeptic and label you as such, even though that isn't what a skeptic is?
Sorry, not how it works.
See, you want to have your cake and eat it.
 
There was a time when it did not recognize interracial marriage. Then, the definition changed, and now it does.
Sir go back and read my post.

Racists did not seek to redefine marriage, racists sought to forbid marriage based on the nature of marriage. The objection of the racists was not "A black and white marriage is not a marriage. We cannot redefine marriage."

The objection of racists to interracial marriage was "If we let blacks and whites marry, the gene pool will be polluted. We can't let that happen."
Which is logically identical to

"there is a basis to allow any kind of relationship, and call it marriage."
Fine. On what basis, aside from the current whims of government do we disallow those kinds of relationships as a marriage?
 
Sir go back and read my post.

Racists did not seek to redefine marriage, racists sought to forbid marriage based on the nature of marriage. The objection of the racists was not "A black and white marriage is not a marriage. We cannot redefine marriage."

The objection of racists to interracial marriage was "If we let blacks and whites marry, the gene pool will be polluted. We can't let that happen."
The point was that marriage was redefined, when you said it couldn't be.

I am still waiting for this proof that there is some cosmically-correct definition of marriage that revolves around procreation - can you provide it, or not?
Fine. On what basis, aside from the current whims of government do we disallow those kinds of relationships as a marriage?
None.

I don't see your point - you seem to be implying that, if the government "whims" allow for gay marriage, they will necessarily allow all this other stuff.
If so, there is a name for that kind of argument.
 
Says who? I identify you as a skeptic, therefore you are.
No, I am a skeptic because I withhold belief without sufficient evidence.
If I have to call a woman a man becasue the woman identifies as a man, why can't I identify you as a skeptic and label you as such, even though that isn't what a skeptic is?
Because the meaning of the word 'woman' has changed and is now used to mean gender as well as sex.
See, you want to have your cake and eat it.
No, I don't. Words change meaning over time - that's the way that English works. That doesn't mean that you get to make up new meanings for existing words whenever you like. This is a pretty basic aspect of English and communication.
 
No, I am a skeptic because I withhold belief without sufficient evidence.

Because the meaning of the word 'woman' has changed and is now used to mean gender as well as sex.

No, I don't. Words change meaning over time - that's the way that English works. That doesn't mean that you get to make up new meanings for existing words whenever you like. This is a pretty basic aspect of English and communication.
You have made up new meanings to words such as female as a man instead of the male that he is. Its the lie of gender identity.
You have made up words to deceive like 'transwoman'
 
Why am I opposed to the redefinition of reality to something it isn't?

For the same reason a mathematician would be opposed to redefining 2+2=4- 2+2=5.

You can't just redefine reality through legislation--not without consequences anyway. When one starts to attempt to redefine reality--what winds up happening is mass confusion--becasue then no one knows what is truly real--and reason winds up out the window.
Marriage isn't reality. It's a human construct. Presumably your objective definition of marriage is written down in the same place as your objective definition of morality. All you need to do is show us and then convince everyone that it should apply universally. Good luck.
Gay marriage is an oxymoron. Period. It is a contradiction in terms.
Rubbish. The terms are mutable, hence no contradiction. You can say they are immutable until you are blue in the face, but the fact is that they have changed, not for the first time and not for the last.
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.
Exactly the same could be said, and was said when interracial marriage was permitted, less than 60 years ago. You cannot see it, because you are so close, but the way that people see those who opposed interracial then will be how you will be seen by future generations.
Someone brought up--that love is a component of marriage. Who says love has to be a component? Traditionally, yes, love is seen as a major component. But since we are now so good at challenging traditional assumptions as to what marriage is or is not, who says love has to be a part of it?
The participants presumably. There isn't a love test in the marriage ceremony.
 
Marriage isn't reality. It's a human construct. Presumably your objective definition of marriage is written down in the same place as your objective definition of morality. All you need to do is show us and then convince everyone that it should apply universally. Good luck.

Rubbish. The terms are mutable, hence no contradiction. You can say they are immutable until you are blue in the face, but the fact is that they have changed, not for the first time and not for the last.

Exactly the same could be said, and was said when interracial marriage was permitted, less than 60 years ago. You cannot see it, because you are so close, but the way that people see those who opposed interracial then will be how you will be seen by future generations.

The participants presumably. There isn't a love test in the marriage ceremony.
No. If one takes God out of the equation, yes it is human construct, however since there ARE two sexes , with compatible anatomy for sexual intimacy and reproduction, its not the same as interracial coupling, because interracial can be pair bonding, loving etc. but it doesnt have the compatible anatomies for reproduction and reproduction is significant.
 
Yes it is. Bad luck
Butt, butt, little goat.

Yes, compatible would probably be better, matching in respect of function. No I have the same anatomy with other males.
'Corresponding' means the same.

or trans. lets discuss
Butt, butt, little goat.

You have made up new meanings to words such as female as a man instead of the male that he is.
No, I haven't.

Its the lie of gender identity.
There is no such lie.

You have made up words to deceive like 'transwoman'
No, I haven't.
 
No. If one takes God out of the equation, yes it is human construct, however since there ARE two sexes , with compatible anatomy for sexual intimacy and reproduction, its not the same as interracial coupling, because interracial can be pair bonding, loving etc. but it doesnt have the compatible anatomies for reproduction and reproduction is significant.
You typed 'interracial' when I think you meant "same sex". But assuming that, it doesn't matter, because reproduction is not a criteria for marriage.
 
No. If one takes God out of the equation, yes it is human construct, however since there ARE two sexes , with compatible anatomy for sexual intimacy and reproduction, its not the same as interracial coupling, because interracial can be pair bonding, loving etc. but it doesnt have the compatible anatomies for reproduction and reproduction is significant.
Gay people also have anatomy for sexual intimacy. Indeed almost everybody does. 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.
 
The father is the mother,
the sister is the brother
it thinks its one another
gender ideology
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.
 
Back
Top