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.
I simply do not give opinions with no factual nor logical basis.
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.
If marriage is what the intending spouses deem it is, then there is no reason for the state to legalize it. It is enough that the state respect their privacy and the pursuit of their happiness - however bizarre that may be.
That is plain propositional logic for you.
The fact that marriage is governed by laws only means that some aspects of the marital institution exceed the bounds of privacy and pursuit of happiness - namely the right
to motherhood, the rights of children and family relations.
You have not mentioned the marital institution as it pertains to the purpose of the state.
Refute, indeed!
Of course not, but then, marriage is about more than the sex act.
Tell me - does the state really give a rat's ass how you perform your marital obligations to your spouse?
The only reasons the state is compelled to regulate marriage are those that result from the above-mentioned marital dimension.
So, keep your reasons to yourself.
Most of the contributions of parenthood come after birth anyway.
That doesn't change the RIGHTS OF CHILDREN.
One can make the argument that one is a better mother or father than another and STILL, ALL children have the right to grow up with his natural family.
Yet another personal insult. See above.
Perhaps you wouldn't feel so insulted if you have presented a rational argument to begin with.
That isn't what I said. Try again.
And yet, you are willing to overlook this important fact. Just so that gays get society to kiss their collective behinds, eh?
I've been quite consistent, as have you. The difference is that I've been able to back up my arguments.
With what? What legal precedent or logical principle have you stated to support your bone-head opinion, eh?
Have you been reading my posts?
Yes I have. You have said NOTHING against the right to motherhood except to claim that women in their 60s cannot bear children.
You have said NOTHING against the rights of children except to claim that a homosexual couple is better than a single parent, or no parent for that matter.
You have said NOTHING against family relations except to claim that gays have families too.
So, what exactly have you refuted, hmmm?
Yes, that is a good definition. Now, you have given us a definition, and an example as well.
That is the ONLY definition. So, having been thoroughly educated with the meaning of the word, would you mind pointing to a circular argument that I made, hmmm?
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.
Its simple set operation and membership, even grade schoolers are capable of it. Sexual assault and homosexuality belong to the set of sexual acts that are not pro-creative in nature - hence cannot be made the basis of marriage.
Flawless logic.
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
.
No amount of disagreement can change the fact that sex is merely a part of the entire process of procreation.
Your statement is symptomatic of a fundamentally faulty logic. The state does not deem your personal pleasure as the purpose of the marital institution, nor any law for that matter. Ethics does not dictate that you act according to a calculation of pleasure, alone.
While sex may indeed be pleasurable and that people do indulge in sex for the pleasure that it brings, such standards of human action has nothing to do with the law nor ethics.
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.
LMAO. You were assuming a dictionary definition when my replies clearly allude to something transcendental? No wonder you are lost.
Pro-creation is the way rational beings share in the PROCESS OF CREATION initiated by the creator. From this, it becomes obvious that any action, to be deemed pro-creative, must conform to a rational conception of HUMAN POTENTIAL.
I see. So, homosexuality is evil?
Yes, insofar as it does not conform to a rational nor ethical good.
If it is evil, does the devil then create homosexuals?
Evil is an absence of good, hence has NO independent and objective existence. You do not need the devil to commit an evil act - only the willful choice to act in a manner CONTRARY to an objective good.
Your statement is entirely bereft of propositional logic.
If it is evil, what evil results from it?
It reduces the UNITIVE AND PRO-CREATIVE PURPOSE of human sexuality to a mere act of personal pleasure.
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.
No you cannot.
To establish a valid correlation between homosexuality and a physical or genetic factor, one must demonstrate that the occurrence of one and the other follow a normal statistical distribution.
To wit, if a normally distributed population of people produces x percent of homosexuals, then x percent of homosexuals must occur everywhere. In fact, this applies to almost all normally distributed statistical fields such that the confidence levels associated with standard deviations are more or less uniform.
Now, if your alleged evidence does not conform to this standard of mathematical rigor, then you might as well keep it to yourself.
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.
It is obvious that you cannot continue your argument within the bounds of the LAW. And if you think you can improve your chances in ethics, you are sadly mistaken.
There is a difference between sterility and impotence. In the latter case, artificial insemination of a married woman with the seeds of her husband is merely an aid to an otherwise natural process. In the former, the medical procedure undermines the whole point of marriage, not to mention the fundamental rights of the child.
From an ethical point of view, conjugal love has BOTH unitive and pro-creative aspects – aspects that are inseparable from one another. A conjugal love lacking one or both of these aspects is inherently DEFECTIVE.
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.
No. My reply was a criticism of the medical procedure of artificial insemination, especially regarding ethics.
Which, by extension, means people most genetically like the child, or most stable and likely to love and care for the child?
You are not even aware of the rights of a child and here you are expounding adoption as if it were a puppy being contemplated here. The cultural background of the prospective parents play a major factor in the determination of adoption.
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.
What about adoption for the purpose of child exploitation, eh? Is this not economically rewarding?
The point in all this is that in determining adoption, the state necessarily applies DUE DILIGENCE AND DISCRIMINATION to protect the rights and interests of the child. It has nothing to do with prejudice against a particular sexual preference.
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.
Are you in the habit of equating legality with ethics? Everything is ok as long as it can be proven permissible legally, eh?
