zippy2006
New member
It seems you didn't, because your "conclusion" is what is directly addressed in the video :idunno:
toldailytopic: Same-sex marriage: for it, or against it?
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
It seems you didn't, because your "conclusion" is what is directly addressed in the video :idunno:
YES, I did. I do not appreciate you insinuating that I am lying, Zipster. As all knowing and perfect as you believe yourself to be, disagreeing with YOU does not make one a liar.
zippy2006
New member
Well you've given one reason that flies in the face of what the video what actually about and another with no justification at all, so maybe you watched it but didn't really take it in? :idunno:
No it is not.
Which is why individuals use birth control! As someone who has been unable to procreate since 1989, I disagree with your *claims* about the purpose of sex.
However, feel free to apply your standard to your uptight self.
Zipster, I am not going to take even two seconds to *justify* myself to you. You did NOT make a debate point ... you made an unwarranted accusation. Something that is quite common for you.
zippy2006
New member
You're the one with no justification whatsoever for your assertion ma'am. The video posed a point and you dismissed it without a "why."
No, I dismissed it because I considered the *point* invalid. We do NOT know for certain that YOU listened to the video.
Feel free though to point out what point you felt was valid. No worries, I will give you enough time to pull the video up and actually watch it.
Tick tock tick tock
zippy2006
New member
What did you think was invalid? I thought the content of the video was valid, the one point that was made in it. You haven't addressed that point. Why was it invalid!?
Universalist
New member
(The main purpose of sex is 'procreation', really? Who made this a law? What about people who can no longer have children?)
TOL (Thinking Out Loud ) :nono::yawn:
TOL (Thinking Out Loud ) :nono::yawn:
So you two disagree. That doesn't make Rusha a liar. Unless disagreement with you suddenly's the same as deception, which is one of the most arrogant claims you could possibly make.
Oh but according to the video, it doesn't change *an apple from being an apple*.
Mind you, this is just double talk as a way to get around the claim that marriage is only for procreation.
Then you would also need to conclude that PRIOR to issuing a marriage license, BOTH partners should be required to have invasive medical procedures done for verification that they are able to bear children. Without such procedures, there is no way to know that the man and women involved are capable of oroducing children.
You would also need to agree that as soon as one of the partners is unable to fill their marital obligation of creating babies, then the state needs to immediately dissolve their marital contract and force divorce them.
"Oh oh What's love got to do, got to do with it?
What's love but a second hand emotion?
What's love got to do, got to do with it?
Who needs a heart when a heart can be broken?"
zippy2006
New member
Needless to say, I didn't call Rusha a liar. I have no doubt she watched it, but I doubt she really listened and thought about it. Take your soap operas elsewhere.
That's just it ... Zippy IS arrogant ... which is why he spends a good portion of the time on my ignore list.
Mr.Razorblades
New member
I disagree with this man's argument, and I'll explain why. The quoted statement that is the topic of this video is "Where procreation is in principle impossible, marriage is irrelevant and not needed." The man defending his quote then states that it is a misunderstanding and gives us his definition of the term, which is "relating to the definition of, not relating to the particular circumstances." Despite the other implications this argument holds, there is a contradiction between his argument and his definition.
His definition of in principle:
Despite there being a contradiction between his argument and his definition there is a serious contradiction in his reasoning.
The simple fact is that no, procreation is not always possible between a man and a woman. He once again uses "in principle" in conjunction with details, in this case "it is always possible." This argument he uses falls apart when you combine the quote with his reasoning.
Further broken down.
His argument and conclusion are in contradiction, making it an invalid and unsound argument.
His definition of in principle:
Despite there being a contradiction between his argument and his definition there is a serious contradiction in his reasoning.
The simple fact is that no, procreation is not always possible between a man and a woman. He once again uses "in principle" in conjunction with details, in this case "it is always possible." This argument he uses falls apart when you combine the quote with his reasoning.
Further broken down.
His argument and conclusion are in contradiction, making it an invalid and unsound argument.
Oh no, you implied it. Here's the deal: You viewed the video with the view that homosexuals should not marry because it was a sin. So NATURALLY, you consider everything said in the video as relevant.
I viewed the video with the preconceived belief of "Oh boy, here we go again. Another person making up excuses to show bigotry towards gays". What was stated on the video is NOTHING new.
I have been on TOL for a number of years and have never read or listened to a relevant reason to disallow gays from marrying. Sort of the same way I have never heard a good reason as to whites and blacks should not marry ...
lain:
Exactly.
- Status