Of gay "marriage," virginity, and JSM's creepy fixation

[_JohnStuartMill]

That's correct; it isn't relevant. The spinal cord injury is incidental (or accidental). The complementarity of the sexes is essential.

Essential to a loving, committed relationship? No.

Does a relationship consisting of a "butch" and a "femme" exhibit complementarity of the sexes any less than does a relationship consisting of a sterile man and a post-menopausal woman?

This assertion is stupid when you make it, too. Besides which, even if it were true that the "same arguments" are being used (which is manifestly not the case), it is fallacious to assert that the arguments must, ipso facto, be erroneous.

Bzzzzzt! Wrong again, nitwit. If interracial marriage is agreed to be permissible, then any form of argument used against it must be erroneous.

Then perhaps you should address it instead of engaging in pseudo argumentation.

It has already been done, implicitly, by yourself, if you actually agree that post-menopausal women should be allowed to marry.

[_Calculus Crusader]

This assertion is stupid when you make it, too. Besides which, even if it were true that the "same arguments" are being used (which is manifestly not the case), it is fallacious to assert that the arguments must, ipso facto, be erroneous.

Bzzzzzt! Wrong again, nitwit. If interracial marriage is agreed to be permissible, then any form of argument used against it must be erroneous.

Your lack of real education is not my problem, moron. Just because arguments are rejected in one context does not necessitate that they be rejected in all contexts. (Of course, I do not concede that the arguments are the same.)

[_Calculus Crusader]

Does your cover, er, I mean your girlfriend, know?

My girlfriend is well aware that you are a cocklick, yes.

Whatever perverted fantasies she shares with you, I am not interested in a threesome with you two; she will have to find someone else to satisfy her.

There is not one section of the Bible that prohibits "whites" marrying "people of color."

Respected theologians believed for years that the verse warning against inter-tribal marriages meant this precise thing.

Provide the verse, dumb ass.

While it is true that the Bible prohibits gay "marriage," I do not make recourse to the Bible in arguing against government recognition of gay "marriage."

Where does the Bible prohibit gay marriage? There are many faithful Christians who take a different view of the Bible than you do.

And they are wrong.

I don't think anyone's buying your "I don't make recourse to the Bible" hogwash, either. It's quite obviously the most important motivating factor in your lobbying, just as it was for racists 100 years ago.

The Bible is very important to me, but I do not make recourse to it in arguing against government recognition of gay "marriage." Read that as many times as it takes to sink in.

[_JohnStuartMill]

Bzzzzzt! Wrong again, nitwit. If interracial marriage is agreed to be permissible, then any form of argument used against it must be erroneous.

Your lack of real education is not my problem, moron. Just because arguments are rejected in one context does not necessitate that they be rejected in all contexts. (Of course, I do not concede that the arguments are the same.)

An argument with all true premises and a false conclusion is an invalid argument. Insofar as the arguments are in fact the same, then what's bad for the goose is bad for the gander.

[_JohnStuartMill]

My girlfriend is well aware that you are a cocklick, yes.

Whatever perverted fantasies she shares with you, I am not interested in a threesome with you two; she will have to find someone else to satisfy her.

This would be quite difficult, given that a) I have no interest in being sucked off by a man, and b) my girlfriend does not have a cock. I forgive the latter mistake, though, as natural for one with your experience of "girl"friends.

Respected theologians believed for years that the verse warning against inter-tribal marriages meant this precise thing.

Provide the verse, dumb ass.

Numbers 36:6.

Dumb ass.

There are many faithful Christians who take a different view of the Bible than you do.

And they are wrong.

, says you. You are just as wrong, according the them. The charge is equally stupid either way.

I don't think anyone's buying your "I don't make recourse to the Bible" hogwash, either. It's quite obviously the most important motivating factor in your lobbying, just as it was for racists 100 years ago.

The Bible is very important to me, but I do not make recourse to it in arguing against government recognition of gay "marriage." Read that as many times as it takes to sink in.

You may not make recourse to it, but the sorry state of your weak secular arguments, indicative of your true motivation, is still analogous to the racism of yore.

[_JohnStuartMill]

By the way, I've responded to the thread in Celestial. Sorry it took so long; I hadn't been in there in a while.

[_EAllusion]

Says you. It certainly bears on the matter, although it is not the sole consideration.

Says my argument. Which is pretty airtight if you accept that both non biological and biological distinctions can be relevant or irrelevant. That means merely knowing if a distinction is biological or not tells us nothing about whether it is relevant or not.

This assertion is stupid when you make it, too. Besides which, even if it were true that the "same arguments" are being used (which is manifestly not the case)

'

Yeah, I'll give you seven common arguments currently used against gay marriage that were used just the same against interracial marriage:

1) An appeal to established religious wisdom / scriptural intepretation

2) An appeal to the practice being "unnatural."

3) Predicting that recognizing (or allowing) the practice will lead to a breakdown in society

4) An appeal to a longstanding social tradition of banning the practice

5) An appeal to a slippery slope. If we allow this form of marriage, then other forms of undesirable marriage will follow

6) Arguing that everyone already had equal rights and that those seeking legalization are asking for "special rights" - In the case of interracial marriage it was that everyone has an equal right to marry a member of their own race; in the case of homosexual marriage, it is that everyone has a right to marry a member of the opposite sex.

7) An appeal to the right of the majority to determine what marriages it finds acceptable and the wrongness of judges to interpret the law in a way that violates this majority will.

Outside of the procreation argument, those are the principle case against gay marriage and were the principle case against interracial marriage. They're illegitimate for roughly the same reasons.

Then perhaps you should address it instead of engaging in pseudo argumentation.

I have in the past. Here, for instance. I'll do so in the future at my leisure.

[_Calculus Crusader]

An argument with all true premises and a false conclusion is an invalid argument. Insofar as the arguments are in fact the same, then what's bad for the goose is bad for the gander.

This is, of course, a vain attempt on your part to appear to know what you are talking about; list the premises and the conclusions of the arguments.

Whatever perverted fantasies she shares with you, I am not interested in a threesome with you two; she will have to find someone else to satisfy her.

This would be quite difficult, given that a) I have no interest in being sucked off by a man...

I do not doubt that; based on the content of your posts, you seem like the submissive/passive type of partner.

...and b) my girlfriend does not have a cock.

I do not doubt that either; if your girlfriend had one, she could please herself and you and you would not be trying to recruit a disinterested third party.

Numbers 36:6.

Dumb ass.

Numbers 36:5-7
5And Moses commanded the people of Israel according to the word of the LORD, saying, "The tribe of the people of Joseph is right. 6This is what the LORD commands concerning the daughters of Zelophehad, 'Let them marry whom they think best, only they shall marry within the clan of the tribe of their father. 7The inheritance of the people of Israel shall not be transferred from one tribe to another, for every one of the people of Israel shall hold on to the inheritance of the tribe of his fathers.

You are such a damn moron. Numbers 36:6 has zero to do with prohibiting whites and “people of color” from marrying.

, says you. You are just as wrong, according the them. The charge is equally stupid either way

Once again you demonstrate your invincible ignorance. I have studied Attic and Koine Greek and I have read the relevant scholarship (including the pseudo scholarship of gay apologists like Dale Martin.) The claim that the Bible does not condemn erotic acts between members of the same sex is manifestly absurd eisegesis.

You may not make recourse to it, but the sorry state of your weak secular arguments, indicative of your true motivation, is still analogous to the racism of yore.

No.

[_JohnStuartMill]

An argument with all true premises and a false conclusion is an invalid argument. Insofar as the arguments are in fact the same, then what's bad for the goose is bad for the gander.

This is, of course, a vain attempt on your part to appear to know what you are talking about; list the premises and the conclusions of the arguments.

This is unnecessary. Anyone who knows the first thing about logic knows that an argument with all true premises and a false conclusion is an invalid argument.

You'd do much better to just distinguish your argument against gay marriage from the arguments given against interracial marriage. So far, you've given 1) the traditional understanding of marriage does not include same-sex relationships, and 2) there is a complementarity between men and women that does not exist in same-sex relationships. You've given no indication of why the latter distinction would necessitate disallowing gay marriage. The former distinction can be proven irrelevant by noting that, for a very long time, interracial marriage was not included in the traditional understanding of marriage, too.

Numbers 36:6.

Dumb ass.

Numbers 36:5-7
5And Moses commanded the people of Israel according to the word of the LORD, saying, "The tribe of the people of Joseph is right. 6This is what the LORD commands concerning the daughters of Zelophehad, 'Let them marry whom they think best, only they shall marry within the clan of the tribe of their father. 7The inheritance of the people of Israel shall not be transferred from one tribe to another, for every one of the people of Israel shall hold on to the inheritance of the tribe of his fathers.

You are such a damn moron. Numbers 36:6 has zero to do with prohibiting whites and “people of color” from marrying.

Yet that was how the world's leading Christian theologians interpreted it for hundreds of years. Hmm...

, says you. You are just as wrong, according the them. The charge is equally stupid either way

Once again you demonstrate your invincible ignorance. I have studied Attic and Koine Greek and I have read the relevant scholarship (including the pseudo scholarship of gay apologists like Dale Martin.) The claim that the Bible does not condemn erotic acts between members of the same sex is manifestly absurd eisegesis.

The Bible does, sure. But Jesus never did, and it's not clear that Saul "women can't speak in church or wear their hair uncovered" of Tarsus is a clear moral authority for modern Christians.

You may not make recourse to it, but the sorry state of your weak secular arguments, indicative of your true motivation, is still analogous to the racism of yore.

No.

Then let's hear these devastating secular arguments, and a denial that your motivation for opposing gay marriage is not religious in nature. The stage is yours.

[_Calculus Crusader]

Says my argument. Which is pretty airtight if you accept that both non biological and biological distinctions can be relevant or irrelevant. That means merely knowing if a distinction is biological or not tells us nothing about whether it is relevant or not.

I think your argument is as airtight as a Jaredite submersible.

Yeah, I'll give you seven common arguments currently used against gay marriage that were used just the same against interracial marriage:

1) An appeal to established religious wisdom / scriptural intepretation

Scripture does not prohibit interracial marriage, unless, perhaps, you are talking about Jews and Moabites.

2) An appeal to the practice being "unnatural."

This is a fine example of an argument being legitimate in one context but not another. The mere fact that people from different races can produce viable children demonstrates that there is nothing unnatural about interracial, male-female coupling. By way of contrast, homoeroticism is completely incongruous with the proper procreative ends of our generative organs and thus a violation of ordo naturalis.

3) Predicting that recognizing (or allowing) the practice will lead to a breakdown in society

That argument is not necessarily illegitimate in this context. The data from countries where gay "marriage" is established will decide it.

4) An appeal to a longstanding social tradition of banning the practice

This is actually important in establishing the correct socio-historical context for state and federal constitutions. When read in their proper contexts, it is impossible to arrive at the conclusion that any constitution demands gay "marriage."

7) An appeal to the right of the majority to determine what marriages it finds acceptable and the wrongness of judges to interpret the law in a way that violates this majority will.

Many make that argument; I do not. My argument is simply that in no case where gay "marriage" was imposed by judicial fiat were the judges exercising legitimate constitutional authority.

Outside of the procreation argument, those are the principle case against gay marriage and were the principle case against interracial marriage. They're illegitimate for roughly the same reasons.

Your proof by mere assertion is noted.