Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Can someone translate this into natural language?
After I've heard this 'argument' enough I ussually leave. I try and respect people enough that I don't pretend they're impossible to understand.Can someone translate this into natural language?
KCKID said:It's easy to say 'easy' as long as the fable of Adam and Eve is accepted merely by rote, devoid of any use of reason. God appears to have been making everything up as He went along in early Genesis. Even when God seems to realize that a helper is necessary for Adam, a female (Eve) is not the first and obvious choice. God instead searches for a helper among the livestock, the birds, and the animals. Alas, none of them were found to be suitable.
KCKID said:Eventually it occurs to Godthat perhaps Adam might prefer a helper that is a similar species to himself. Bingo! Then comes Eve. Not a bevy of females from which Adam can choose to be his helper, mind, but just one, Eve. And, isn't that generally the way that it was in the days of yore, the authority figures choosing wives for the sons?
I find it inconceivable that anyone would actually expect a 'gay' couple to conclude that their relationship should come to a grinding halt and forthwith remain celibate after reading Genesis ...or Paul, for that matter.
Sorry. At times I realize that I'm guilty of injecting far too much sound reasoning into this issue.
By the way, it wasn't God who said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.' It was Moses, the human author.
It is hard to believe that pedophiles can get over having sex with babies, but they can and have... Social acceptence and rejection, in addition to spiritual guidance goes a long way to repairing a warped mind...
No, that's another substantial weakness, because the pro-family people are typically for marriage reform, which draws from their premises, and is precisely a reason to exclude gays from marriage.
After I've heard this 'argument' enough I ussually leave. I try and respect people enough that I don't pretend they're impossible to understand.
Simply put, the California Supreme Court wasn't about seperate but equal, but about substantially equal under the law, but not logically, and then the protected class gets its last desire. But, because the equality isn't logical, Prop 8 could be upheld.
Indeed, you snip and reject, and 'I don't understand' arguments amount to a shaming tactic. Did you know that?
Reforms that have the intent of keeping couples who sign a contract together, especially for the benefit of children. This is the system that was in place and being reformed and improved before no-fault divorce was enacted. It was changed to a Bolshevik type system for the feminists by reason of violence. I disagree strong with their jurisprudence, because their objective wasn't to improve society, instead it was based on extreme circumstance, which results in bad civil laws. In this case they prefer women and lawyers. At least they profess to prefer women, when in actuallity they make women poor. Just like abortion makes women with marginalized and 'to blame.'What is "marriage reform"?
When California's elitist judges trumped the votes of the people, they accepted a philosophical argument, just like those you'll find in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. The wrinkle in Califonia's law was that civil unions were substantially equal to marriage in the state law, which allows are peculiar claim of seperate but equal.I am trying to figure out your argument. You throw around bits of legal terminology somewhat randomly.
Your second paragraph, f'rinstance, refers to "protected class", which is a term of art that takes us into an Equal Protection analysis. In the same paragraph, however, you also refer to "substantially equal", which hints at a substantive Due Process analysis. I know where you are going--"no gay marriage!"--but I have no idea how you get there.
Reforms that have the intent of keeping couples who sign a contract together, especially for the benefit of children.
This is the system that was in place and being reformed and improved before no-fault divorce was enacted.
It was changed to a Bolshevik type system for the feminists by reason of violence.
I disagree strong with their jurisprudence, because their objective wasn't to improve society, instead it was based on extreme circumstance, which results in bad civil laws.
In this case they prefer women and lawyers. At least they profess to prefer women, when in actuallity they make women poor. Just like abortion makes women with marginalized and 'to blame.'
People don't want to know that this logic is continuous and integrated, but they often use that fact to attempt to seek a weakness somewhere, because people can't be expected to understand the entire internally logical and positive for society philosophy.
When California's elitist judges trumped the votes of the people, they accepted a philosophical argument, just like those you'll find in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. The wrinkle in Califonia's law was that civil unions were substantially equal to marriage in the state law, which allows are peculiar claim of seperate but equal.
That's the lead in. Anyway, because the gays were defined as the protected class they got what they desired, which was actual equality under the civil law.
That's a loaded question. For the civil system it was bad because they judges trumped the logical choice of the people, they got skunked by that with prop 8, which is the part of my post you conveniently edited out. It's amazing you present yourself as respectful, then edit my post, and then ask for me to repeat the part you edited out.And that was a bad thing precisely why?
When you do this, it is not respectful. You ask questions continuously that are answered later.Are you sure you want to go for a contract analysis of marriage here? I think it weakens you position substantially. We allow all sorts of persons to enter into contracts, including legal persons such as partnerships and corporations. If marriage is a contract, then there is no reason to restrict it to only opposite sex couples.
No fault divorce seems to me to be a reform and improvement of the prior system. It certainly makes it more like a contract.
Not an argument--just name-calling.
They had bad motives? That's the best I can pull out of this sentence. If that is your meaning here, then what were their motives--they being "feminists"?
Hold on--I thought the problem was bad motives. Now it's bad economic results. Is it both?
Translation--people disagree with fated! Those people sometimes even argue against fated!
Why don't you draw yourself a Venn, and give up this pretext.I'm still waiting, Fated. You need to explain the following, as it seems to be your effective position in this thread:
P1: Marriage is an institution to support procreation and the effective raising of children.
C1: Homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to marry.
C2: Couples that are sterile, elderly, or who have no intention of having children should be allowed to marry.
C2 does not follow from P1, and thus your position is either illogical - or you are not including all of the premises in your argument.
The reason these debates on thread are so heated is because those who are pro-marriage generally know actual logical arguments regarding the issue. It is then that gay marriage activists are taught to avoid reason and use either an emotional appeal or shaming to avoid any discussion of procreation.
Also, they the emotional appeal often shows that they don't have a logical argument and appeals that allows should be awarded marriage to help them with their differences.
Also, I read a recent article, wherein it is indicated that the best need to identify themselves as gay first, and then indicates that anyone who is against gay marriage therefore hates them, which, as I have indicated is not a logical conclusion, but a malignant type of rhetoric.
Finally, you can see by going through these thread the lack of respect for children and families that is taught to gay marriage activist. As if I'm abhorrent just because I'm different than? And that is were the unnatural argument comes in, when you don't respect natural mothers and fathers, and comprehend natural differences, then you aren't in reality.
In fact, many of the arguments aren't even logical. And among those that are logical they fail to see that logic has many paths, and many of them are false.
fated said:Why don't you draw yourself a Venn, and give up this pretext.
Why don't you draw yourself a Venn, and give up this pretext.
That's a loaded question.
For the civil system it was bad because they judges trumped the logical choice of the people,
they got skunked by that with prop 8, which is the part of my post you conveniently edited out.
It's amazing you present yourself as respectful, then edit my post, and then ask for me to repeat the part you edited out.
Why don't you draw yourself a Venn, and give up this pretext.
I am not sure set theory is a good way to approach this. What sets are we discussing?
When you do this, it is not respectful. You ask questions continuously that are answered later.
I can understand doing this to some extent, but as a sole manner of debate it's very disingenuous. You don't really care what's logical, you just want to win or for me to go away.
Here, I've been inundated with people saying that I'm evading, or illogical. I'm not trying to.Apparently the sets of:
A: Fertile heterosexual couples
B: Infertile heterosexual couples
C: Homosexual couples
All three would, of course, overlap on a Venn diagram showing that all three can possibly raise children. So I don't know what Fated's point is.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?