Is it still an insult when the statement has factual basis, hmmm?
Another insult, showing beyond a doubt that you have lost the game. You see, a debate like this one is just a game. I'm not trying to convince you that I'm right, just using fact and logic to try to dispute your opinions. Whenever you keep repeating yourself, then try to say that I'm mentally challenged because your repetitions fall on deaf ears, the game is essentially over.
The udhr says that the state cannot make laws that would contradict the stated principles. You may have you own purpose for marrying but the purposes for which the state legalizes marriage are - and I repeat - the right to motherhood, the rights of children and family relations.
Another repetition of the notion that motherhood is the only reason for marriage. You have not backed up that statement, and it has, in fact been logically refuted.
Eh? You do not understand reproductive POTENTIAL???
Tell me, does the homosexual act manifest ANY reproductive potential????
Of course not, but then, marriage is about more than the sex act.
If the parental rights of the biological father, a contributor to the woman's fecundity, is defective, what more the lesbian partner - who contributed NOTHING?
Most of the contributions of parenthood come after birth anyway.
You really can leap from one absurdity to another you might as well be superman.
Yet another personal insult. See above.
The 'natural and fundamental group unit of society' is irrelevant???
That isn't what I said. Try again.
You can't even keep your argument consistent.
I've been quite consistent, as have you. The difference is that I've been able to back up my arguments.
Have you been reading my posts?
A circular argument is one that postulates the proposition that is being proven. I did no such thing, nor have you explained anything to this effect.
Yes, that is a good definition. Now, you have given us a definition, and an example as well.
pro-creative
human love is the vehicle through which the process of creation occurs. pro-creative.
which is another way of passing on one's genes - pro-creative.
Definitely NOT pro-creative. You can lump this one up with homosexuality.
You're lumping sexual assault and homosexuality? No wonder your arguments are falling flat. Most sexual assault happens when men assault women, and it often does result in procreation.
Did I say 'every'? I said the sexual act is FUNDAMENTALLY, a pro-creative mechanism of the specie. Yep, that's what I said.
Yes, that is what you said, and I respectfully disagree. Most sexual acts are performed for pleasure, not for procreation. Yes, of course, most procreation is the result of sexual activity, no doubt about that.
What is your definition of procreation, BTW? I'm using it to mean the union of the sperm and egg, resulting in the beginning of a new life.
Now, whose arguing 'because god says so', eh? Evil occurs everywhere and yet one cannot claim evil to be god's creation. You do need to keep up.
I see. So, homosexuality is evil? If it is evil, does the devil then create homosexuals? If it is evil, what evil results from it?
Yes, I did use a religious argument. No, I can't prove that god creates homosexuals, any more than you can prove the opposite. I can give you evidence that homosexuality is not a choice, but is a part of the individual.
Yes. Exactly what is wrong with that? And while you're at it, what is wrong with the global organ trade?
There is nothing wrong with artificial insemination, whether it is done because a man is sterile, or because the woman's lover is another woman.
When the natural pro-creative process is reduced to a mere financial transaction, that is what's wrong.
And it is this culture - when every human purpose is attached with a price tag - which you wish to pass on to the next generation. What a pity.
It is marriage that brings tax advantages as well as children. A homosexual couple with children can still declare the children as dependents. They just can't file jointly.
One that approximates his natural family.
Which, by extension, means people most genetically like the child, or most stable and likely to love and care for the child?
No. And I think it is borderline fraud to adopt a child to get tax perks, a measure of financial stability in the process. Shame on you.
Once again, my reference was to filing jointly, not to tax deductions.
No one of any sexual orientation is going to adopt a child simply for tax deductions. That is not only reprehensible, but it is poor economics as well.
It also doesn't say anything about degrees of consanguinity and yet I don't think you are looking to marry your hot first cousin - just your particular brand of sexual adventurism, hmmm?
And yet, it would be perfectly legal for me to marry my hot first cousin in most states, that is, it would be if I weren't already married.
It certainly follows from your argument. A premise that leads to an absurdity is an absurdity.
Yes, as you are fond of proving.
Extending a woman's right to motherhood to her lesbian partner VIOLATES the child's rights. Capice?
So you say. Yet another opinion not backed up by fact. How does raising a child in a homosexual partnership violate that child's rights?
You do not think that the marital laws of the us logically follow the principles stated in the udhr?
Does the udhr say that the only reason for marriage is motherhood? If so, then no, they do not. Your example given above does not prove that there are no other purposes for marriage, however, so maybe they do.
You do not agree with the operation of logic, then?
I have been arguing from the position of logic. You cannot do so in this debate, since your position is based on emotion. That doesn't mean you can't apply logic, of course, just that your current position has no logic to support it.
There isn't more to marriage - in the point of view of the STATE - other than the ones I have said. And unlike your opinion - this statement is a fact.
You keep repeating that opinion, but haven't done a thing to back it up. There is, of course no backup, as marriage is about more than motherhood, as I've already enumerated.
