Talk about exaggeration. It's only been ONE previous time according to you. Plus, how do you know that I read your answer?
on that one subject. but it's kind of a habit you have of forgetting what you were talking about. I find it annoying to have to remind you. So I'm not doing it any more. you responded to it. if you don't read what you respond to that's a problem with you.
So you're saying that in another thread, I asked you if you were a libertarian, then you answered and then I replied to your answer?
no... This is what I mean. You forget too much s*** to have a conversation. I never said you asked me. I said I stated it, and you responded to that statement multiple times. So honestly I think you're just playing games. The best way to annoy someone who plays these kind of games is not to play by their rules.
You said, "you've already forgotten your question." It can't be any other question other than the libertarian one.
That it defeats the entire purpose of the institution. Correct. I usually add to that definition (with religious context) by saying "Marriage is the sacred union between an adult man and an adult woman, in which those two separate physical bodies become one single body (in spirit). Marriage serves as a model of (and the institution of marriage itself derives from) the relationship between Jesus Christ (the "husband") and The Church (his "bride")." In other words, removing the religious context away from it, marriage requires that procreation must be possible in principle. With gay/lesbian "marriages", procreation is not possible in principle. Therefore, those relationships are not marriages, and I do not recognize them as such. Correct, by definition. With same-sex couples, procreation is impossible in principle. Only between a man and a woman is procreation possible. I'd be okay with that, but I would prefer adjustments be made to the tax code so that this isn't even an issue.
Removing bad parts from the good parts is not changing the definition of something. Removing a worm from an apple is not changing the definition of an apple.
No different than allowing two 80 year old heterosexuals to marry. And gay couples can create a family in the same way that thousands of heterosexuals do, surrogates and medically induced. Gay does not mean sterile.
out of curiosity... do you have any information that gay marriage is somehow “ abused or taken advantage of” in some unusual way that is not true of non gay marriages?
VERY different. You missed the words in my post that I have now bolded above. In your example listed here, procreation IS possible in principle. In a homosexual relationship, procreation is NOT possible in principle. No they cannot. With homosexuality, procreation is impossible in principle. Only with heterosexuality is procreation possible in principle. Now you're appealing to the abnormal as if it were the normal... Never said it did.
So you would say that that heterosexual couples who are physically incapable of reproduction without medical science should not be allowed to marry - or will you admit that your post is hypocritical? All this does not matter since marriage has nothing to do with reproduction. My wife and I are no less married after 28 years because we do not have kids. It's a civil act - not a religious or reproductive act. You do not have to be religious to reproduce. You do not have to be married to reproduce. A gay woman who is married to another woman can be impregnated the exact same way a heterosexual married woman can be impregnated. You don't have to be married in a church, you can be married in a courthouse. You can be married at 80, or you can be married even though you have had a vasectomy. It's just asinine to link marriage to reproduction - it's a non-started in the real world.
False Dichotomy Fallacy. Strawman Argument Fallacy. They can marry. They are able to procreate in principal. Are you purposely ignoring the words 'in principal? Do you not understand what 'in principal' means? Yes, it does. We couldn't exist as a species without reproducing. Never said you weren't. You two are married as much as any other man/woman couple because you two, like them, can procreate in principal. It is all of the above. Correct. Correct. Yes, by another MAN. It takes a MAN to impregnate a woman. Procreation is only possible in principal between a man and a woman. Correct. Correct. Not at all. Reproduction is necessary for the continuation of mankind. It is an essential part of what marriage is and the purpose for it. Again, you keep appealing to exceptions and abnormalities as if they are the normal. Define "reality". I bet you can't.
If marriage were abolished tomorrow, it would have zero impact on reproduction capabilities. Your link of marriage to reproduction is a false one. Humans would not become sterile if marriage is outlawed.
Since the institution of marriage has been around from before the Christ was even spoken of in prophecy, how could it be derived of his relationship with the Church? Assuming that the religious context is no longer there, under what principle is procreation required for marriage? Your personal recognition means nothing. If I say that I do not recognize so called Christian marriages, does that make them not marriages? If procreation potential is the basis of marriage, then by that logic, if a couple need the use of fertility procedures, their marriage is then null and void. Since they cannot procreate naturally, they cannot be married. What changes are.you proposing?
Science can only prove that a genetic male and a genetic female who are both fertile are required for procreation. Science cannot prove that marriage is only between a man and a woman, especially since procreation can occur without marriage and marriage can occur without procreation.
The worm is not part of the apple, just as procreation is not part of marriage. A worm can be either inside or outside of an apple. Procreation can be either inside or outside of a marriage.
Now explain how procreation is a required part of marriage, especially legal marriage as opposed to religious marriage.
Normal is only objective as a statistical value. Otherwise it is a subjective value. And if we use the frequency of left handedness as an example of what can be considered normal, then non sexual means of procreation have indeed become normal. With that said, you are imposing an assumption that procreation has to occur within marriage. And why in principle as opposed to in potential?
