We understand them and you apparantly don’t, since Stephen has asked you again and again for your response on what marriage is and you refuse to do so. Based on your response you don’t know what marriage is. Obviously.Sorry, that is your claim, not mine. I just don’t want to waste time defining concepts that are well-understood by everyone in this debate (even those who pretend not to understand them).
Exactly. Why can’t I marry my father, then? Why can’t I marry three men? If I feel it is right, I should be able to do so, right? Based on your logic, whether it is right or wrong, I should be able to marry whomever I want based on approval seeking and my own minority agenda.So you don’t think incest should be celebrated? Why?
If you can celebrate marrying someone of your own gender, why isn’t incest as good?
For that matter why isn’t it okay to marry an alligator or running chain saw? Or the moon?
Yes. The “whose reproductive parts all works” is an important qualification that was missing in your previous post.No, you’re twisting my words. Here’s how it goes down:
The only type of sexual union that can produce children is one consisting of a male and a female (whose reproductive parts all work). Surely you agree with this – it is called science.
I don’t see why I need to. My point is I don’t see why the “ordered towards procreation” requirement, which is a distinctly Catholic concept, should be adopted by the secular State.
- If “ordered” is too Catholic for you, give me a definition of marriage, and one that somehow limits the marriage to only two people.
First, other Catholics have told me that impotent couples (e.g., parapelegics) are NOT ordered towards procreation because they can’t perform penis-vagina sex.
- Catholics would say that impotent couples (where the condition is not fixable) are NOT permitted to marry. (But it’s not because their bodies aren’t ordered toward procreation – they are – but rather because they cannot consummate the union, which is a separate discussion.)
I don’t see how the topic of same-sex marriage, which is a legal issue, is about the subject of sexual morality.No. The subject is sexual morality.
I can only repeat what I said: Incest is a separate issue and should be assessed on its own terms. The topic here is SSM.So you don’t think incest should be celebrated? Why?
If you can celebrate marrying someone of your own gender, why isn’t incest as good?
For that matter why isn’t it okay to marry an alligator or running chain saw? Or the moon?
Have you ever heard of the story of Abraham and Sarah? Or how about Zechariah and Elizabeth?Second, the inability of a couple to perform penis-vagina sex has never been a barrier to a marriage license (and yes, Catholics have told me that penis-vagina sex = ordered towards procreation). Again, the focus is on civil marriage, not religious marriage.
I can only repeat what I wrote: Incest is a separate issue and should be assessed on its own terms. The topic here is SSM.Exactly. Why can’t I marry my father, then? Why can’t I marry three men? If I feel it is right, I should be able to do so, right? Based on your logic, whether it is right or wrong, I should be able to marry whomever I want based on approval seeking and my own minority agenda.
So you approve of incest?I can only repeat what I said: Incest is a separate issue and should be assessed on its own terms. The topic here is SSM.
What should be done about those traits that are not conducive to optimal survival, should we seek to eliminate them, because that is an argument an advocate of eugenics could make. Anomolies can exist incidentally and not toward the destruction of something. Homosexuals can’t procreate and that is incidental to procreation itself and not a threat.Being left-handed is considered a variant in our culture because a) it occurs in a certain fairly large segment of the population, and b) it’s not a threat to survival in our society. If it were a threat in our society, it would be a serious matter. BTW, there is no RITE of LEFT-handedness and it’s not sacramental. It’s a different kind of thing altogether.
As for twinning, it’s actually a positive survival strategy. IT favors survival in most cases in human beings.
I contest that it’s not a separate issue. We’re talking about determining who or what we can marry.I can only repeat what I said: Incest is a separate issue and should be assessed on its own terms. The topic here is SSM.
Incest ceases to become a seperate issue if you are trying to open the doors to allow marriage to include same sex couples. It is exactly the same issue. How is incest, or me marrying my plastic pencil box or my dog any different from same sex marriage if it is allowed? It is not. I demand my special rights! If marriage is not between a man and a woman than there is no definition and I should be able to marry anything, or anyone, including children, dogs, the moon, a chainsaw, excrement, my refrigerator, my mother, the zoo, etc.I can only repeat what I wrote: Incest is a separate issue and should be assessed on its own terms. The topic here is SSM.
It’s not incidental. It’s highly detrimental because it ties up 2 couples that now don’t exist, not one. And it produces nothing.What should be done about those traits that are not conducive to optimal survival, should we seek to eliminate them, because that is an argument an advocate of eugenics could make. Anomolies can exist incidentally and not toward the destruction of something. Homosexuals can’t procreate and that is incidental to procreation itself and not a threat.
Specifically, here we are determining whether or not same-sex couples have the right to marry – nothing to do with incest.I contest that it’s not a separate issue. We’re talking about determining who or what we can marry.
Okay, if you think they’re both the same, then argue for that conclusion – don’t just assert it. Provide some argumentation.It is exactly the same issue. How is incest, or me marrying my plastic pencil box or my dog any different from same sex marriage if it is allowed? It is not.
It’s hypocritical for you to criticize us for limiting the definition of marriage when you are placing your own limits on it.Specifically, here we are determining whether or not same-sex couples have the right to marry – nothing to do with incest.
Well, no, we don’t kill off people with defects, but we also don’t go around seeking to create them over and above their natural occurrence. It’s unfortunate when a child is born this way rather than normally and this has wide agreement in society. When defects strike human beings, we try to minimize the damage done and make their lives as normal as possible. Since we are talking about human beings, we won’t talk about what must happen with farm livestock which is different because they’re not human.What should be done about those traits that are not conducive to optimal survival, should we seek to eliminate them, because that is an argument an advocate of eugenics could make. Anomolies can exist incidentally and not toward the destruction of something. Homosexuals can’t procreate and that is incidental to procreation itself and not a threat.
Except I haven’t limited anything – except the scope of the discussion, which is about SSM. I haven’t argued one way or another about whether marriage should be expanded in other ways.It’s hypocritical for you to criticize us for limiting the definition of marriage when you are placing your own limits on it.
It’s only detrimental to the procreative potential of the homosexuals themselves, and not the procreative potential of the heterosexual majority. There are religious and moral matters involved, but I was responding to your appeal to biology.It’s not incidental. It’s highly detrimental because it ties up 2 couples that now don’t exist, not one. And it produces nothing.
And over and above that, are all the societal, moral and religious matters that are involved.
YES. YOU HAVE. Expanding marriage on your pretext includes all other expansions by definition.Except I haven’t limited anything – except the scope of the discussion, which is about SSM. I haven’t argued one way or another about whether marriage should be expanded in other ways.
Can you provide an ancient reasoned definition of marriage which will include opposite-sex couples and same-sex couples but exclude pedophile couples? Remembering of course that laws and taboos can be changed.Incest ceases to become a seperate issue if you are trying to open the doors to allow marriage to include same sex couples. It is exactly the same issue. How is incest, or me marrying my plastic pencil box or my dog any different from same sex marriage if it is allowed? It is not. I demand my special rights! If marriage is not between a man and a woman than there is no definition and I should be able to marry anything, or anyone, including children, dogs, the moon, a chainsaw, excrement, my refrigerator, my mother, the zoo, etc.