• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Search results

  1. S

    Blog on Same-Sex "Marriage," Atheism, and More

    Where does what come from? You don't make sense. Second language and all, I suppose. Yeah, I'm pretty sure.
  2. S

    Blog on Same-Sex "Marriage," Atheism, and More

    What is a mistake? Still not sure what you are saying. Of course not. What's up with the incessant straw-manning? It seems desperate. For the 17th time, sterile men and women can marry precisely because they form the specific type of union that is ordered towards procreation. Okay. Plan to...
  3. S

    Blog on Same-Sex "Marriage," Atheism, and More

    I'm not saying that "human sexuality" is intrinsically ordered towards procreation; I'm saying that the sexual union between a man and a woman is ordered towards procreation. The very fact that you have to take measures to prevent pregnancy (e.g. contraception) is evidence of this obviousity.
  4. S

    Blog on Same-Sex "Marriage," Atheism, and More

    What part of "that's only conditionally true" do you have trouble in understanding? I didn't bother responding to the rest because it was mostly an unintelligible mess. I'm not sure if English being your second language (as in my case) or sloppy thinking is to blame.
  5. S

    Blog on Same-Sex "Marriage," Atheism, and More

    The reason the government has an interest in opposite-sex couples is because they are precisely the kind of union that is essentially procreative in nature. Not sure what you're saying. No, not the willingness to have children; the inherent capacity to have children. I agree; I don't...
  6. S

    Blog on Same-Sex "Marriage," Atheism, and More

    Except that, unlike the view of the supporter of ssm (which you concede is arbitrary), the view of marriage I endorse is not at all arbitrary! Que viva Brazil.
  7. S

    Blog on Same-Sex "Marriage," Atheism, and More

    Disagree with what? I'm not sure what you mean by "the order for procreation." Furthermore, what do you mean that "gender and biological sex has little to do with that [ostensibly, procreation]"? It's quite obvious how gender has to do with procreation. Human females are rare? What?
  8. S

    Blog on Same-Sex "Marriage," Atheism, and More

    That's it? That's your reply? I'll give you another chance to actually respond. But allow me to answer this objection once again. An infertile man can marry a woman (or vice versa) because all married couples of the opposite sex -- infertile or not -- are still capable of engaging in the kind...
  9. S

    Blog on Same-Sex "Marriage," Atheism, and More

    Alas the absurd is embraced. And not even consistently, at any rate. See, the only reason that marriage has been limited to two people has been precisely because of the union between a man and a woman and its inherent link with children. Now, supporters of ssm will want to have nothing to do...
  10. S

    Blog on Same-Sex "Marriage," Atheism, and More

    What the heck are you saying brother? This just doesn't make sense. I don't know what you are asking me. Source? I highly doubt that. Adoption is tedious. And it's no surprise that is! For adoption exists to provide children with the parents they need, not with just any irresponsible couple...
  11. S

    Blog on Same-Sex "Marriage," Atheism, and More

    Well I don't think it makes sense of two people of the same-sex "marrying" one another. For marriage just is the metaphysically comprehensive union between a man and a woman that is ordered towards procreation. No other union is similar to this insofar as this is the only sort of union that is...
  12. S

    God existance paradox?

    I didn't ask you whether the LPoE was "done to death," I asked you to defend it. If you're not willing to, then perhaps you shouldn't have said that you were earlier. And I can't very well know whether Platinga's free will defense will apply to the sort of LPoE you're be ostensibly defending for...
  13. S

    Blog on Same-Sex "Marriage," Atheism, and More

    If you suppose that the (arbitrary) criterion for marriage is just "seeking to marry" then you'd be, in principle, committed to allowing any configuration of individuals who "seek to marry" to be able to "marry."
  14. S

    Blog on Same-Sex "Marriage," Atheism, and More

    I'm not sure what you mean by whether I "take them into account." Thanks for the feedback.
  15. S

    Blog on Same-Sex "Marriage," Atheism, and More

    A man and his sister seek marriage. 10 men and women seek marriage. The entire population of Lodi seeks marriage. See the issue here?
  16. S

    Blog on Same-Sex "Marriage," Atheism, and More

    I wish I could say that I was expecting the anti-miscegenation laws comment with eagerness. Anywho, the reason why the anti-miscegenation laws were unjust was precisely because of the public purpose of marriage, namely, to attach mothers and fathers to their children and to one another. Allow me...
  17. S

    Blog on Same-Sex "Marriage," Atheism, and More

    Begging the question - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia GotMeGood.gif
  18. S

    Blog on Same-Sex "Marriage," Atheism, and More

    Right, but the cries for ssm are only equaled by the "rights" for ss partners to "parent." And, of course, implementing ssm will inevitably change parenting law. But that just isn't obvious enough, I suppose.
  19. S

    Blog on Same-Sex "Marriage," Atheism, and More

    Yeah, good one, you got me /sarcasm. Okay, encore: (I) as far as I know, there are legal recourses that are available for them to be able to do so (II) why assume that they should be afforded those benefits in the first place? That's just more question-begging, but, then again, that seems to...
  20. S

    Blog on Same-Sex "Marriage," Atheism, and More

    Right, but the state wouldn't allow them to marry on the basis that they are friends; it would allow them to marry because they can form the type of union that is essentially ordered towards procreation. Utterly irrelevant. This is just nonsense: P1.) Individual citizens are part of the...
Top