*mentally shifts fidosim from the 'ridiculous politics, but relatively bright' category to the bulging-at-the-seams 'lunatic rightwing idiots' category*
[QUOTE="kingkong0124"] No, I was born that way. Prove that it is innate characteristic. The burden of proof is on you, and once again, you have yet to come up with evidence. You are simply resorting to half-assed logic. kingkong0124
Sexual arousal is caused by a subconscious reaction. Your brain is "hotwired" to respond to certain sights, smells and tastes in certain ways. You can't change it. So being gay is 100% natural. You have yet to provide evidence that is simply innate though...What do you even mean by 'innate'
[QUOTE="fidosim"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="fidosim"] I have already acknowledged that not all straight couples are capable of having kids. But ONLY straight couples are capable of having kids. So marriage, which is in principle an institution for the purpose of having and rearing children, is for straight couples only. As you're just repeating your previous argument, and I explained why your previous argument was so utterly stupid, I don't think any response is required from me to this. I think I have responded to all of the criticisms i've come across. But if you want to throw in the towel, that's fine.I hardly think that given up on a broken record constitutes throwing in the towel. But OK, whatever makes you feel better.
[QUOTE="SolidSnake35"] Because that's life.SolidSnake35
Don't they weed unthinking, fatuous 'reasoning' like this out of you if do a philosophy degree? I keep my fun times on OT separate from my academic work. ;DI kinda guessed as much, seeing as you didn't fail your degree
[QUOTE="fidosim"] Only straight couples can produce kids. So...fidosim
Or rather, only a subset of straight couples can have kids; and yet you apparently don't wish to restrict marriage to this subset, but rather to the subset of couples who are heterosexual. Not to mention the stupidity of your reasoning, as others have pointed out and which I therefore don't need to restate. I have already acknowledged that not all straight couples are capable of having kids. But ONLY straight couples are capable of having kids. So marriage, which is in principle an institution for the purpose of having and rearing children, is for straight couples only. As you're just repeating your previous argument, and I explained why your previous argument was so utterly stupid, I don't think any response is required from me to this.
[QUOTE="SolidSnake35"] Because that's life.SolidSnake35
Why didn't black compromise during the civil rights movement? Why didn't women during the suffrage?
Equal rights can't be compromised, if they are then it's no longer equal.
So if you had the chance to enter into the lovely union of hooglyboogly with your lover, and get all the same rights and respect that married couples get, you'd turn it down and say, pfft, I want this same damn thing to be called marriage or we're not equal?Somehow I don't see 'hooglyboogly' getting the same respect that marriage does, actually
[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="fidosim"] That would be an incidental case, and not a fundamental one. There are certain heterosexual couples who cannot have kids, but the ultimate purpose of marriage is to have kids. fidosim
Yeah, that's meaningless bullsh*t, and makes it pretty clear that what you really care about is whether a couple if straight or not Only straight couples can produce kids. So...Or rather, only a subset of straight couples can have kids; and yet you apparently don't wish to restrict marriage to this subset, but rather to the subset of couples who are heterosexual, which of course is not consistent with your argument. Not to mention the stupidity of your reasoning as regards the 'fundamental purpose of marriage', as others have pointed out and which I therefore don't need to restate.
[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="fidosim"]I just don't think marriage should become unmoored from its fundamental purpose, which is the creation of children. fidosim
Then I take it you think that the marriage of infertile heterosexual couples should be banned? Not like they're going to have any more chance of procreating than a gay couple, right? That would be an incidental case, and not a fundamental one. There are certain heterosexual couples who cannot have kids, but the ultimate purpose of marriage is to have kids. Yeah, that's meaningless bullsh*t, and makes it pretty clear that what you really care about is whether a couple if straight or not
[QUOTE="SolidSnake35"] But it wouldn't be terming it a different word. If would be a different union. Just an equally good one. I think it's a good compromise.SolidSnake35
Why should we have to compromise? Because that's life.Don't they weed unthinking, fatuous 'reasoning' like this out of you if do a philosophy degree?
Log in to comment