Godot

It is patently obvious that you see procreation as the most important purpose. I have clearly stated as much had you taken the time to read the words I typed. Since you actually responded, I fail to see how you came to misunderstand my position.

Nevertheless, you have yet to answer my question, unless you think dancing with semantics to ba a valid answer. I'll put the statement to you one more time: As I have suggested (and you have not denied), your primary objection is the child concept. I come to this conclusion from your inclusion of it as the primary argument against homosexual unions and that you place it in higher regard than any husband and wife issues.
I'll quote you again: Let's take this as given.
Given that it is the most important aspect of marriage, how do you reconcile those individuals that cannot function in a procreative manner? Are they not to be permitted marriages?
Since you contend that marriage you must a) define "stable family, and b) provide case-studies demonstrating that procreation outside of said "stable family" paradigm is detrimental. However, this position still begs the question of what is to be done with those couples that are incapable of consumating the procreative act to fruition?

yguy

Because, as I said, there are other aspects to marriage besides childhood; among them is the opportunity for a man and woman to learn to relate to each other properly.

Screw that. It's my keyboard, not yours.

Godot

Upon what do you base this exculsivist opinion of yours that marriage is only to be open to a man and woman?
How do you relate to somebody properly? Is there an instruction manual? Please, tell me sensai, as I wish to enhance my relationship with my partner. Dispense unto me your infinite wisdom: I'm all ears.

Quote:

Screw that. It's my keyboard, not yours.

How eminently mature of you. I commend you for your brilliant response! What exactly is the purpose of your presence in this thread if you are unwilling to delineate your stance or defend it in a forthcoming manner?!?
Do you not possess the ability to suitably articulate your opinions, or are you merely unwilling to put yourself on the line and get called out for believing in some superstitious claptrap with no basis in reality?
You have been asked multiple times to present a rational basis for your position. You have danced around doing so, until this most recent outburst where you have decided to take your ball and go home.
Disingenuous and poor form, son. If you want to act like a troll, don't waste other peoples time in doing so.

Dr Rick

It's obvious how you concluded that allowing same sex marriages will lead to the imposition of Islamic law and the downfall of the USA.

yguy

With all due respect, sir, that is a really silly question. It's like asking why cows can't be chickens.

That's not the point just now. The point is that there are obviously wrong ways of doing it. That means that there are right ways of doing it.

Marriage IS the manual.

Obviously you and I have rather different ideas about what a forthcoming manner is. I've said repeatedly that I have little respect for empirical approaches to these things. Those who insist on debating that way need to debate someone besides me, in the vast majority of cases.

To you, perhaps not.

That is laughably absurd. Traditional marriage made America not just the most powerful country in the world, but the noblest and most compassionate. In effect, the history of the country from the founding until WWII is a monumental case study demonstrating the value of traditional morality, including marriage.

winstonjen

So dating doesn't work?

Godot

Funny. You still didn't answer the question. Surprise, surprise.

Quote:

That's not the point just now. The point is that there are obviously wrong ways of doing it. That means that there are right ways of doing it.

You brought it up, so I thought I'd ask.
I disagree that there are right and wrong ways of doing it. It is fallacious to claim that if some ways are wrong, then there must be some that are right. It is equally possible that all ways are incorrect.
Besides, by what basis are you using to determine right and wrong? Is that the only possible basis?

Quote:

Marriage IS the manual.

If it is the manual, then I weep for the wedded. If it were a functional manual, then we would not be having this particular conversation now, would we?

Quote:

Obviously you and I have rather different ideas about what a forthcoming manner is. I've said repeatedly that I have little respect for empirical approaches to these things. Those who insist on debating that way need to debate someone besides me, in the vast majority of cases.

Despite your reluctance to provide any empirical support for your positions, when you make a claim that can be validated using empirical means, you are obligated to do so.
Without providing any basis more stable than your opinion renders your stance untenable and patently absurd in the extreme. It also further caricatures you as a troll.

Quote:

That is laughably absurd. Traditional marriage made America not just the most powerful country in the world, but the noblest and most compassionate. In effect, the history of the country from the founding until WWII is a monumental case study demonstrating the value of traditional morality, including marriage.

haha! Good one!......


.....wait. You're not joking here.
America's ascendancy to global pre-eminence can be directly attributed to marriage? I hand't realised that every other country on this planet of ours had abandoned marriage for any appreciable length of time to allow this to occur.
In what way does nobility and compassion remotely relate to marriage? If at all, they are virtues that are more akin to supporting equal rights and recognition for others irrespective of their sexual orientation. Remember: that is still the OP that is germane to this discussion.
I think you need to take off your historical-revisionist glasses. Please define "traditional morality" for the class. I am unwilling to comment further until you provide me a context for this statement. I certainly don't want to kick the shit out of a strawman unnecessarily.

Debbie T

My preacher preached it, I believe it and that's the end of it.

Fr.Andrew

(yguy): Am I to blame for homosexuals who committed suicide?
(Fr Andrew): Absolutely! You and others who willfully perpetuate ignorance on gender issues and who encourage the notion that homosexuality is somehow morally inferior to heterosexuality--in short, you and your fellow homophobes--are directly to blame for homosexual suicide. Particularly the suicides of gay children.

(yguy): Traditional marriage made America not just the most powerful country in the world, but the noblest and most compassionate.
(Fr Andew): Lessee...how do you say it? "That's a statement with no basis in fact."

(yguy): Marriage IS the manual.
(Fr Andrew): That's why (heterosexual) divorce is at an all-time high?

Bob Stewart

Maybe someone already said this about/to yguy in this thread or elsewhere (in the "Homosexuality" thread, but

Bob Stewart