Total Posts:47|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Same sex marriage is impossible

surrendersacrifice
Posts: 11
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2013 7:56:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Marriage is a covenant of love between two human beings in which they unite their lives to form one life. Since life is physiological the only way they can unite their lives is by uniting their physiologies. Among all the physiologies we have, the only physiology in which two human beings can unite is in reproductive physiology. Furthermore such a union is only possible between a man and a woman who have complementary organs and physiologies to unite their physiologies. Therefore, marriage is only possible between a man and a woman. Same sex activity, therefore, is not physiological.
Love is the spirit of surrender, sacrifice, service
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2013 8:03:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/31/2013 7:56:42 PM, surrendersacrifice wrote:
Marriage is a covenant of love between two human beings in which they unite their lives to form one life. Since life is physiological the only way they can unite their lives is by uniting their physiologies. Among all the physiologies we have, the only physiology in which two human beings can unite is in reproductive physiology. Furthermore such a union is only possible between a man and a woman who have complementary organs and physiologies to unite their physiologies. Therefore, marriage is only possible between a man and a woman. Same sex activity, therefore, is not physiological.

Well, this is utter bollocks.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
cybertron1998
Posts: 5,818
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2013 8:05:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/31/2013 7:56:42 PM, surrendersacrifice wrote:
Marriage is a covenant of love between two human beings in which they unite their lives to form one life. Since life is physiological the only way they can unite their lives is by uniting their physiologies. Among all the physiologies we have, the only physiology in which two human beings can unite is in reproductive physiology. Furthermore such a union is only possible between a man and a woman who have complementary organs and physiologies to unite their physiologies. Therefore, marriage is only possible between a man and a woman. Same sex activity, therefore, is not physiological.

do we care? No we don't
Epsilon: There are so many stories where some brave hero decides to give their life to save the day, and because of their sacrifice, the good guys win, the survivors all cheer, and everybody lives happily ever after. But the hero... never gets to see that ending. They'll never know if their sacrifice actually made a difference. They'll never know if the day was really saved. In the end, they just have to have faith.
leojm
Posts: 1,825
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2013 8:08:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/31/2013 7:56:42 PM, surrendersacrifice wrote:
Marriage is a covenant of love between two human beings in which they unite their lives to form one life. Since life is physiological the only way they can unite their lives is by uniting their physiologies. Among all the physiologies we have, the only physiology in which two human beings can unite is in reproductive physiology. Furthermore such a union is only possible between a man and a woman who have complementary organs and physiologies to unite their physiologies. Therefore, marriage is only possible between a man and a woman. Same sex activity, therefore, is not physiological.

Yeah the sex part, it will be hard to do if your gay.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2013 8:56:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/31/2013 7:56:42 PM, surrendersacrifice wrote:
Marriage is a covenant of love between two human beings in which they unite their lives to form one life. Since life is physiological the only way they can unite their lives is by uniting their physiologies. Among all the physiologies we have, the only physiology in which two human beings can unite is in reproductive physiology. Furthermore such a union is only possible between a man and a woman who have complementary organs and physiologies to unite their physiologies. Therefore, marriage is only possible between a man and a woman. Same sex activity, therefore, is not physiological.

tl;dr: I don't think that gay people should have sex. Therefore, gay marriage is impossible. Stellar reasoning.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2013 9:20:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
http://i.imgur.com...
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
catalinaretana
Posts: 1
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2013 6:05:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/31/2013 7:56:42 PM, surrendersacrifice wrote:
Marriage is a covenant of love between two human beings in which they unite their lives to form one life. Since life is physiological the only way they can unite their lives is by uniting their physiologies. Among all the physiologies we have, the only physiology in which two human beings can unite is in reproductive physiology. Furthermore such a union is only possible between a man and a woman who have complementary organs and physiologies to unite their physiologies. Therefore, marriage is only possible between a man and a woman. Same sex activity, therefore, is not physiological.

You are right in the thing of sex, but i believe that same sex people can love each other, they cannot reproduce but they can feel love for each other, religion and other things have been instilling fear to gay people, and many of them felt guilty of that, they felt really bad and was a hard situation for them. In this years society has been approving the relation between gay people, and now the people who descriminate are seen as ignorants, and it's going to continue until in every country gay marriage will be approved, and maybe in many years, people of same gender could be reproducing, product of evolution.
Andromeda_Z
Posts: 4,151
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2013 6:48:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Trust me. Gay sex is definitely possible. I would post all kinds of evidence for you, but I'd rather not get banned for it.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2013 6:54:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/2/2013 6:48:45 PM, Andromeda_Z wrote:
Trust me. Gay sex is definitely possible. I would post all kinds of evidence for you, but I'd rather not get banned for it.

You'll get banned only if it is MM. If it is FF, you'll probably get an award.

*do not trust this post*
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2013 7:41:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/31/2013 8:08:16 PM, leojm wrote:
At 5/31/2013 7:56:42 PM, surrendersacrifice wrote:
Marriage is a covenant of love between two human beings in which they unite their lives to form one life. Since life is physiological the only way they can unite their lives is by uniting their physiologies. Among all the physiologies we have, the only physiology in which two human beings can unite is in reproductive physiology. Furthermore such a union is only possible between a man and a woman who have complementary organs and physiologies to unite their physiologies. Therefore, marriage is only possible between a man and a woman. Same sex activity, therefore, is not physiological.

Yeah the sex part, it will be hard to do if your gay.

I'm not sure if you're trolling or if you are just being stupid, but if you're actually a Christian and you actually believe this, shouldn't you support gay marriage then since it would be love of the purest kind?
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2013 7:41:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/2/2013 6:54:50 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 6/2/2013 6:48:45 PM, Andromeda_Z wrote:
Trust me. Gay sex is definitely possible. I would post all kinds of evidence for you, but I'd rather not get banned for it.

You'll get banned only if it is MM. If it is FF, you'll probably get an award.

*do not trust this post

I don't understand why guys are obsessed with lesbians.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2013 7:42:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/2/2013 7:41:55 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 6/2/2013 6:54:50 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 6/2/2013 6:48:45 PM, Andromeda_Z wrote:
Trust me. Gay sex is definitely possible. I would post all kinds of evidence for you, but I'd rather not get banned for it.

You'll get banned only if it is MM. If it is FF, you'll probably get an award.

*do not trust this post

I don't understand why guys are obsessed with lesbians.

Because we aren't very smart. What's not to get?
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
leojm
Posts: 1,825
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2013 7:51:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/2/2013 7:41:27 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 5/31/2013 8:08:16 PM, leojm wrote:
At 5/31/2013 7:56:42 PM, surrendersacrifice wrote:
Marriage is a covenant of love between two human beings in which they unite their lives to form one life. Since life is physiological the only way they can unite their lives is by uniting their physiologies. Among all the physiologies we have, the only physiology in which two human beings can unite is in reproductive physiology. Furthermore such a union is only possible between a man and a woman who have complementary organs and physiologies to unite their physiologies. Therefore, marriage is only possible between a man and a woman. Same sex activity, therefore, is not physiological.

Yeah the sex part, it will be hard to do if your gay.

I'm not sure if you're trolling or if you are just being stupid, but if you're actually a Christian and you actually believe this, shouldn't you support gay marriage then since it would be love of the purest kind?

No I don't support gay marriage. I'm appauld that Christians support gay marriage. (Some) That just puzzles me. Like throws me off guard. I mean really... that's just gross.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2013 7:52:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/2/2013 7:51:26 PM, leojm wrote:
At 6/2/2013 7:41:27 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 5/31/2013 8:08:16 PM, leojm wrote:
At 5/31/2013 7:56:42 PM, surrendersacrifice wrote:
Marriage is a covenant of love between two human beings in which they unite their lives to form one life. Since life is physiological the only way they can unite their lives is by uniting their physiologies. Among all the physiologies we have, the only physiology in which two human beings can unite is in reproductive physiology. Furthermore such a union is only possible between a man and a woman who have complementary organs and physiologies to unite their physiologies. Therefore, marriage is only possible between a man and a woman. Same sex activity, therefore, is not physiological.

Yeah the sex part, it will be hard to do if your gay.

I'm not sure if you're trolling or if you are just being stupid, but if you're actually a Christian and you actually believe this, shouldn't you support gay marriage then since it would be love of the purest kind?

No I don't support gay marriage. I'm appauld that Christians support gay marriage. (Some) That just puzzles me. Like throws me off guard. I mean really... that's just gross.

Ok, and were you asked to participate in it? I think cauliflower is gross, but I don't support banning it. I just choose not to eat it.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2013 8:00:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/2/2013 7:51:26 PM, leojm wrote:
At 6/2/2013 7:41:27 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 5/31/2013 8:08:16 PM, leojm wrote:
At 5/31/2013 7:56:42 PM, surrendersacrifice wrote:
Marriage is a covenant of love between two human beings in which they unite their lives to form one life. Since life is physiological the only way they can unite their lives is by uniting their physiologies. Among all the physiologies we have, the only physiology in which two human beings can unite is in reproductive physiology. Furthermore such a union is only possible between a man and a woman who have complementary organs and physiologies to unite their physiologies. Therefore, marriage is only possible between a man and a woman. Same sex activity, therefore, is not physiological.

Yeah the sex part, it will be hard to do if your gay.

I'm not sure if you're trolling or if you are just being stupid, but if you're actually a Christian and you actually believe this, shouldn't you support gay marriage then since it would be love of the purest kind?

No I don't support gay marriage. I'm appauld that Christians support gay marriage. (Some) That just puzzles me. Like throws me off guard. I mean really... that's just gross.

And why should the laws of the land be based on what you consider 'gross'?
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
leojm
Posts: 1,825
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2013 8:09:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/2/2013 8:00:57 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 6/2/2013 7:51:26 PM, leojm wrote:
At 6/2/2013 7:41:27 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 5/31/2013 8:08:16 PM, leojm wrote:
At 5/31/2013 7:56:42 PM, surrendersacrifice wrote:
Marriage is a covenant of love between two human beings in which they unite their lives to form one life. Since life is physiological the only way they can unite their lives is by uniting their physiologies. Among all the physiologies we have, the only physiology in which two human beings can unite is in reproductive physiology. Furthermore such a union is only possible between a man and a woman who have complementary organs and physiologies to unite their physiologies. Therefore, marriage is only possible between a man and a woman. Same sex activity, therefore, is not physiological.

Yeah the sex part, it will be hard to do if your gay.

I'm not sure if you're trolling or if you are just being stupid, but if you're actually a Christian and you actually believe this, shouldn't you support gay marriage then since it would be love of the purest kind?

No I don't support gay marriage. I'm appauld that Christians support gay marriage. (Some) That just puzzles me. Like throws me off guard. I mean really... that's just gross.

And why should the laws of the land be based on what you consider 'gross'?

Exactly. :) But It's the health issue that is bothersome. Stuff like STDs and other life threatening problems. You know gas carry that crap.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2013 9:13:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/2/2013 8:09:47 PM, leojm wrote:
At 6/2/2013 8:00:57 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 6/2/2013 7:51:26 PM, leojm wrote:
At 6/2/2013 7:41:27 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 5/31/2013 8:08:16 PM, leojm wrote:
At 5/31/2013 7:56:42 PM, surrendersacrifice wrote:
Marriage is a covenant of love between two human beings in which they unite their lives to form one life. Since life is physiological the only way they can unite their lives is by uniting their physiologies. Among all the physiologies we have, the only physiology in which two human beings can unite is in reproductive physiology. Furthermore such a union is only possible between a man and a woman who have complementary organs and physiologies to unite their physiologies. Therefore, marriage is only possible between a man and a woman. Same sex activity, therefore, is not physiological.

Yeah the sex part, it will be hard to do if your gay.

I'm not sure if you're trolling or if you are just being stupid, but if you're actually a Christian and you actually believe this, shouldn't you support gay marriage then since it would be love of the purest kind?

No I don't support gay marriage. I'm appauld that Christians support gay marriage. (Some) That just puzzles me. Like throws me off guard. I mean really... that's just gross.

And why should the laws of the land be based on what you consider 'gross'?

Exactly. :) But It's the health issue that is bothersome. Stuff like STDs and other life threatening problems. You know gas carry that crap.

I don't carry an of them, while many straights do carry them. I work in biotech, I help make the tests for things like STIs, so I understand how it works. They can be transmitted by any person of any sexual orientation through any manner of sex, though some kinds of sex are more risky than others. But STIs were and are, to a lesser degree, more common among the male gay community because, before HIV came around, no one really wore condoms. This is because they were only really used to prevent pregnancy, and gays obviously didn't have to worry about that. So it spread much faster through the gay community at the time, but after people started to have protective sex the original danger subsided.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2013 12:12:25 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/2/2013 7:41:55 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 6/2/2013 6:54:50 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 6/2/2013 6:48:45 PM, Andromeda_Z wrote:
Trust me. Gay sex is definitely possible. I would post all kinds of evidence for you, but I'd rather not get banned for it.

You'll get banned only if it is MM. If it is FF, you'll probably get an award.

*do not trust this post

I don't understand why guys are obsessed with lesbians.

Because, for a host of reasons, many straight dudes like looking at boobs more than looking at other dudes' junk.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
RyuuKyuzo
Posts: 3,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2013 12:26:56 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
> God hates homosexuals
> Male g-spot is located in the anus

You can't explain that.
If you're reading this, you're awesome and you should feel awesome.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2013 12:33:10 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/3/2013 12:26:56 AM, RyuuKyuzo wrote:
> God hates homosexuals
> Male g-spot is located in the anus

You can't explain that.

The devil created the male g-spot in order to lure us into sin.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
RyuuKyuzo
Posts: 3,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2013 12:36:42 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/3/2013 12:33:10 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 6/3/2013 12:26:56 AM, RyuuKyuzo wrote:
> God hates homosexuals
> Male g-spot is located in the anus

You can't explain that.

The devil created the male g-spot in order to lure us into sin.

c'mere and lemme give you a prostate exam.

....................../""/)
....................,/"../
.................../..../
............./""/'...'/"""`""
........../'/.../..../......./""\
........('(..."...".... "~/'...')
.........\.................'...../
..........'...\.......... _.""
............\..............(
..............\.............\...
If you're reading this, you're awesome and you should feel awesome.
johnnyboy54
Posts: 6,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2013 12:44:31 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/3/2013 12:36:42 AM, RyuuKyuzo wrote:
At 6/3/2013 12:33:10 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 6/3/2013 12:26:56 AM, RyuuKyuzo wrote:
> God hates homosexuals
> Male g-spot is located in the anus

You can't explain that.

The devil created the male g-spot in order to lure us into sin.

c'mere and lemme give you a prostate exam.

....................../""/)
....................,/"../
.................../..../
............./""/'...'/"""`""
........../'/.../..../......./""\
........('(..."...".... "~/'...')
.........\.................'...../
..........'...\.......... _.""
............\..............(
..............\.............\...

Strange. My doctor always used two fingers for that...
I didn't order assholes with my whiskey.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2013 12:48:40 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/3/2013 12:44:31 AM, johnnyboy54 wrote:
At 6/3/2013 12:36:42 AM, RyuuKyuzo wrote:
At 6/3/2013 12:33:10 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 6/3/2013 12:26:56 AM, RyuuKyuzo wrote:
> God hates homosexuals
> Male g-spot is located in the anus

You can't explain that.

The devil created the male g-spot in order to lure us into sin.

c'mere and lemme give you a prostate exam.

....................../""/)
....................,/"../
.................../..../
............./""/'...'/"""`""
........../'/.../..../......./""\
........('(..."...".... "~/'...')
.........\.................'...../
..........'...\.......... _.""
............\..............(
..............\.............\...

Strange. My doctor always used two fingers for that...

You're not very tight anymore, apparently.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Contradiction
Posts: 409
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2013 1:22:02 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
This is actually a very well written summary of the conjugal understanding of marriage. I don't see what's so bad about it.

The reasoning is basically this: Marriage is a union between persons. Unity involves two parts coordinating toward a common end (e.g. the various parts of a plane are united together in the sense that they coordinate toward a common end: flight). So for marriage to be a union, there must be organic coordination on part of both parties toward a common end. This coordination is found in coitus, when male and female sexual organs coordinate toward the only biological purpose toward which human persons are naturally incomplete: procreation. Since coordination of this type is possible only between a man and woman, it follows that marriage is essentially heterosexual.

(Lest someone raise the infertility objection: Coordination requires only that the requisite parts be striving toward a common end, not that they actually achieve it. Biological unions persist through defects; an eye is still an eye even if it cannot see in virtue of what it is coordinated to as its proper end).
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2013 1:34:51 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/3/2013 1:22:02 AM, Contradiction wrote:
This is actually a very well written summary of the conjugal understanding of marriage. I don't see what's so bad about it.

The reasoning is basically this: Marriage is a union between persons. Unity involves two parts coordinating toward a common end (e.g. the various parts of a plane are united together in the sense that they coordinate toward a common end: flight). So for marriage to be a union, there must be organic coordination on part of both parties toward a common end. This coordination is found in coitus, when male and female sexual organs coordinate toward the only biological purpose toward which human persons are naturally incomplete: procreation. Since coordination of this type is possible only between a man and woman, it follows that marriage is essentially heterosexual.

(Lest someone raise the infertility objection: Coordination requires only that the requisite parts be striving toward a common end, not that they actually achieve it. Biological unions persist through defects; an eye is still an eye even if it cannot see in virtue of what it is coordinated to as its proper end).

That would require that people be "striving" towards that goal, which is not an actual requirement. For example, many married people are on birth control, which is clear indication that they are not striving towards that common end.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Contradiction
Posts: 409
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2013 1:38:34 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/3/2013 1:34:51 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 6/3/2013 1:22:02 AM, Contradiction wrote:
This is actually a very well written summary of the conjugal understanding of marriage. I don't see what's so bad about it.

The reasoning is basically this: Marriage is a union between persons. Unity involves two parts coordinating toward a common end (e.g. the various parts of a plane are united together in the sense that they coordinate toward a common end: flight). So for marriage to be a union, there must be organic coordination on part of both parties toward a common end. This coordination is found in coitus, when male and female sexual organs coordinate toward the only biological purpose toward which human persons are naturally incomplete: procreation. Since coordination of this type is possible only between a man and woman, it follows that marriage is essentially heterosexual.

(Lest someone raise the infertility objection: Coordination requires only that the requisite parts be striving toward a common end, not that they actually achieve it. Biological unions persist through defects; an eye is still an eye even if it cannot see in virtue of what it is coordinated to as its proper end).

That would require that people be "striving" towards that goal, which is not an actual requirement. For example, many married people are on birth control, which is clear indication that they are not striving towards that common end.

Not quite. The striving is organic; it need not be conscious. An eye remains coordinated to the end of sight even if we don't think about it. Similarly, sex is coordinated toward procreation even if we don't intend it.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2013 1:41:22 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/3/2013 1:38:34 AM, Contradiction wrote:
At 6/3/2013 1:34:51 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 6/3/2013 1:22:02 AM, Contradiction wrote:
This is actually a very well written summary of the conjugal understanding of marriage. I don't see what's so bad about it.

The reasoning is basically this: Marriage is a union between persons. Unity involves two parts coordinating toward a common end (e.g. the various parts of a plane are united together in the sense that they coordinate toward a common end: flight). So for marriage to be a union, there must be organic coordination on part of both parties toward a common end. This coordination is found in coitus, when male and female sexual organs coordinate toward the only biological purpose toward which human persons are naturally incomplete: procreation. Since coordination of this type is possible only between a man and woman, it follows that marriage is essentially heterosexual.

(Lest someone raise the infertility objection: Coordination requires only that the requisite parts be striving toward a common end, not that they actually achieve it. Biological unions persist through defects; an eye is still an eye even if it cannot see in virtue of what it is coordinated to as its proper end).

That would require that people be "striving" towards that goal, which is not an actual requirement. For example, many married people are on birth control, which is clear indication that they are not striving towards that common end.

Not quite. The striving is organic; it need not be conscious. An eye remains coordinated to the end of sight even if we don't think about it. Similarly, sex is coordinated toward procreation even if we don't intend it.

These types of arguments are absurd coming from people wearing clothes. The only "subverting of nature" that really seem to be objected to are the subjectively "icky" ones. Also, it's an argument against BJs, and that's just absurd whatever your inclinations.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Contradiction
Posts: 409
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2013 1:44:26 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/3/2013 1:41:22 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 6/3/2013 1:38:34 AM, Contradiction wrote:
At 6/3/2013 1:34:51 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 6/3/2013 1:22:02 AM, Contradiction wrote:
This is actually a very well written summary of the conjugal understanding of marriage. I don't see what's so bad about it.

The reasoning is basically this: Marriage is a union between persons. Unity involves two parts coordinating toward a common end (e.g. the various parts of a plane are united together in the sense that they coordinate toward a common end: flight). So for marriage to be a union, there must be organic coordination on part of both parties toward a common end. This coordination is found in coitus, when male and female sexual organs coordinate toward the only biological purpose toward which human persons are naturally incomplete: procreation. Since coordination of this type is possible only between a man and woman, it follows that marriage is essentially heterosexual.

(Lest someone raise the infertility objection: Coordination requires only that the requisite parts be striving toward a common end, not that they actually achieve it. Biological unions persist through defects; an eye is still an eye even if it cannot see in virtue of what it is coordinated to as its proper end).

That would require that people be "striving" towards that goal, which is not an actual requirement. For example, many married people are on birth control, which is clear indication that they are not striving towards that common end.

Not quite. The striving is organic; it need not be conscious. An eye remains coordinated to the end of sight even if we don't think about it. Similarly, sex is coordinated toward procreation even if we don't intend it.

These types of arguments are absurd coming from people wearing clothes. The only "subverting of nature" that really seem to be objected to are the subjectively "icky" ones. Also, it's an argument against BJs, and that's just absurd whatever your inclinations.

No. Endorsement of this argument does not entail endorsement of the perverted faculty argument, according to which it is wrong to misuse natural functions. I happen to think that it argument is sound, but we need not be committed to it (Indeed, the main philosophers who have done work on the conjugal view of marriage have explicitly rejected the PFA). The claim is only that same-sex couples are incapable of forming a marital union. Not that homosexual sex is immoral.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2013 1:50:52 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/3/2013 1:38:34 AM, Contradiction wrote:
At 6/3/2013 1:34:51 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 6/3/2013 1:22:02 AM, Contradiction wrote:
This is actually a very well written summary of the conjugal understanding of marriage. I don't see what's so bad about it.

The reasoning is basically this: Marriage is a union between persons. Unity involves two parts coordinating toward a common end (e.g. the various parts of a plane are united together in the sense that they coordinate toward a common end: flight). So for marriage to be a union, there must be organic coordination on part of both parties toward a common end. This coordination is found in coitus, when male and female sexual organs coordinate toward the only biological purpose toward which human persons are naturally incomplete: procreation. Since coordination of this type is possible only between a man and woman, it follows that marriage is essentially heterosexual.

(Lest someone raise the infertility objection: Coordination requires only that the requisite parts be striving toward a common end, not that they actually achieve it. Biological unions persist through defects; an eye is still an eye even if it cannot see in virtue of what it is coordinated to as its proper end).

That would require that people be "striving" towards that goal, which is not an actual requirement. For example, many married people are on birth control, which is clear indication that they are not striving towards that common end.

Not quite. The striving is organic; it need not be conscious. An eye remains coordinated to the end of sight even if we don't think about it. Similarly, sex is coordinated toward procreation even if we don't intend it.

Their bodies strive for it just as much as yours or mine. They still get aroused and their semen is still potent to fertilize a women (or be fertilized by a man). So, organically, they strive just as we do. The only difference is the conscious acts, which can be shown to have the same chance of success as an older post-menopausal couple.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2013 1:57:28 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/3/2013 1:44:26 AM, Contradiction wrote:

No. Endorsement of this argument does not entail endorsement of the perverted faculty argument, according to which it is wrong to misuse natural functions. I happen to think that it argument is sound, but we need not be committed to it (Indeed, the main philosophers who have done work on the conjugal view of marriage have explicitly rejected the PFA). The claim is only that same-sex couples are incapable of forming a marital union. Not that homosexual sex is immoral.

That's just a rhetorical dodge, though, the fundamental logic is exactly as unsound.

It presumes a definition which relies on some specific idea, an intent from nature to create a union through a specific means. It bases that on nothing whatsoever except unsound "naturalism" claims, in exactly the same manner the PFA does.

It presumes an intent to nature that isn't present in the way it assumes it is, and an "obligation" to that intent that isn't present, either. Sure, rejecting the PFA means they narrow the terms of the argument to "what this word means" instead of "is this behavior immoral", but it's the same argument being used, that there's some "natural intent" that we have an "obligation" to.

If there isn't an obligation to that natural intent, the entire argument falls apart, because there's no reason not to simply redefine the word. If there is no "natural intent", then the entire argument falls apart because it becomes nothing more than the procreation argument, which is laughably absurd.

If the supporters of this concept do reject the PFA (and I'll take your word that they do), I suspect it's because they don't like the implications of the overall PFA, since they're unsound, but find gay sex icky and so therefore being gay married is a totally different argument even though the basis is the same because because!
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!