Chick Fil-A Day!

[Revolutopia]

Alright, a tiny percentage of women give birth extremely late in life. Thus gay marriage is wrong.

Also, you can't read, evidently, for you did not see that.

Point is, there is no way to prove, or even be, 100% infertile.

Post menopausal women, so can we bar women who have been diagnosed as menopausal.

[Frisivisia]

reapeat from earlier post:

Mrs. Steve Pace =/= 99% of women who are infertile by their sixties. So apparently Mrs. Steve Pace's marriage is better than all the other elderly people in the world's because she can give birth at a really old age? That's preposterous.

I've already shown the heterosexual marriages which are childless are just as much of marriages as those with child. It's a theoretical imperfection stemming from the fact that at any age and condition a man and a woman can create a child.

Two men could have a child. It's been done.

[Revolutopia]

And there goes your credibility. Reductio ad absurdum, the mathematical proof, strikes again.

Yes, your favorite argument. Hypocrite.

How is that any what surprising while looking at his post history?

[Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f]

You're conflating the words "better" with "more of"

I could use that same argument for Bob and his filing cabinet, who will be married for all time, as opposed to quickie celebrity marriages.

If Bob and his filing cabinet are in love, who are we to deny them?

That's only because Bob uses the filing cabinet to store his vintage pr0n...

[The Mongol Ilkhanate]

And there goes your credibility. Reductio ad absurdum, the mathematical proof, strikes again.

Yes, your favorite argument. Hypocrite.

You realize reductio ad absurdum is different than appeal to absurdity, right? Appeal to absurdity is to phrase the opponent's position in an incredibly mocking way to prove it wrong. Reductio ad absurdum is to reach a universally undesirable conclusion nobody wants (such as people marrying inanimate objects), therefore, the reasoning which created that has to be incorrect/undesirable.

[Beiluxia]

Irrelevant. You're saying that as long as a marriage has the possibility to create birth, then it is more of a marriage than those with less chance of creating life through inter-marital means. If that's the case, marriages which produce a bunch of offspring, only to end in divorce later, is better more of a marriage than a life-long commitment between two people who decide not to have a child.

You're conflating the words "better" with "more of"

I could use that same argument for Bob and his filing cabinet, who will be married for all time, as opposed to quickie celebrity marriages.

In the entire context, it pretty much means the same thing. Although I tire of repeating myself OVER AND OVER AGAIN, I'll say it again regardless of whether you ignore me or not: Judge each based on their own merit. By your definition, this guy's "marriage" is better than a quickie celebrity marriage. Huh.

[Inky Noodles]

Makes me wanna watch year one again.

Or Life of Brian.

Life of Brian is amazing.

[The Mongol Ilkhanate]

I've already shown the heterosexual marriages which are childless are just as much of marriages as those with child. It's a theoretical imperfection stemming from the fact that at any age and condition a man and a woman can create a child.

Two men could have a child. It's been done.

Source.

[Frisivisia]

Two men could have a child. It's been done.

Source.

Don't feel like it. I remember seeing a thing where a man gave birth.

[Revolutopia]

Yes, your favorite argument. Hypocrite.

You realize reductio ad absurdum is different than appeal to absurdity, right? Appeal to absurdity is to phrase the opponent's position in an incredibly mocking way to prove it wrong. Reductio ad absurdum is to reach a universally undesirable conclusion nobody wants (such as people marrying inanimate objects), therefore, the reasoning which created that has to be incorrect/undesirable.

Prove that nobody wants that.

[Frisivisia]

You realize reductio ad absurdum is different than appeal to absurdity, right? Appeal to absurdity is to phrase the opponent's position in an incredibly mocking way to prove it wrong. Reductio ad absurdum is to reach a universally undesirable conclusion nobody wants (such as people marrying inanimate objects), therefore, the reasoning which created that has to be incorrect/undesirable.

Prove that nobody wants that.

I want that. Me and my computer are always together.

[The Realm of God]

Yes, your favorite argument. Hypocrite.

You realize reductio ad absurdum is different than appeal to absurdity, right? Appeal to absurdity is to phrase the opponent's position in an incredibly mocking way to prove it wrong. Reductio ad absurdum is to reach a universally undesirable conclusion nobody wants (such as people marrying inanimate objects), therefore, the reasoning which created that has to be incorrect/undesirable.

Why don't you want people marrying objects. Again without quoteing the Bible.

[The Mongol Ilkhanate]

You're conflating the words "better" with "more of"

I could use that same argument for Bob and his filing cabinet, who will be married for all time, as opposed to quickie celebrity marriages.

In the entire context, it pretty much means the same thing. Although I tire of repeating myself OVER AND OVER AGAIN, I'll say it again regardless of whether you ignore me or not: Judge each based on their own merit. By your definition, this guy's "marriage" is better than a quickie celebrity marriage. Huh.

I've already shown that having children doesn't make your marriage better, because you were trying to say more of a marriage and I rejected that, because you can always have a kid. The purpose is for creating kids, kids don't have to be created.

[Astrolinium]

Two men could have a child. It's been done.

Source.

He's thinking of that one thing with the transgender guy or whatever.
So we can't do that.

But I have provided you with three sources that show we will be able to relatively soon.

[Frisivisia]

You realize reductio ad absurdum is different than appeal to absurdity, right? Appeal to absurdity is to phrase the opponent's position in an incredibly mocking way to prove it wrong. Reductio ad absurdum is to reach a universally undesirable conclusion nobody wants (such as people marrying inanimate objects), therefore, the reasoning which created that has to be incorrect/undesirable.

Why don't you want people marrying objects. Again without quoteing the Bible.

Deuteronomy 14:23:

And thou shalt command unto him, that thou shalt never marry an idol, for the LORD doth rule it unholy.

[Page]

Source.

He's thinking of that one thing with the transgender guy or whatever.
So we can't do that.

But I have provided you with three sources that show we will be able to relatively soon.

Transgender men are men, even if they still have biologically female reproductive organs.

[The Mongol Ilkhanate]

You realize reductio ad absurdum is different than appeal to absurdity, right? Appeal to absurdity is to phrase the opponent's position in an incredibly mocking way to prove it wrong. Reductio ad absurdum is to reach a universally undesirable conclusion nobody wants (such as people marrying inanimate objects), therefore, the reasoning which created that has to be incorrect/undesirable.

Why don't you want people marrying objects. Again without quoteing the Bible.

Because I don't want my marriage being changed to the point where it is as meaningless as a man and a filing cabinet.

[Frisivisia]

In the entire context, it pretty much means the same thing. Although I tire of repeating myself OVER AND OVER AGAIN, I'll say it again regardless of whether you ignore me or not: Judge each based on their own merit. By your definition, this guy's "marriage" is better than a quickie celebrity marriage. Huh.

I've already shown that having children doesn't make your marriage better, because you were trying to say more of a marriage and I rejected that, because you can always have a kid. The purpose is for creating kids, kids don't have to be created.

The purpose of marriage is tax breaks.

[Beiluxia]

Yes, your favorite argument. Hypocrite.

You realize reductio ad absurdum is different than appeal to absurdity, right? Appeal to absurdity is to phrase the opponent's position in an incredibly mocking way to prove it wrong. Reductio ad absurdum is to reach a universally undesirable conclusion nobody wants (such as people marrying inanimate objects), therefore, the reasoning which created that has to be incorrect/undesirable.

Why are you equating this with this? JUDGE EACH BASED ON THEIR OWN MERIT. These words seem to have escaped you many times, but I will say it again.

[Revolutopia]

Two men could have a child. It's been done.

Source.

Some female-to-male transgender people can become pregnant, while still identifying and living as men. This is possible for individuals who still have functioning ovaries and a uterus.[11][12][13]

For example, Matt Rice, a transgender man, bore a son named Blake in October 1999 [14] following random sperm donations from three male friends[15] during his relationship with transgender writer Patrick Califia.[15]

Thomas Beatie, another transgender man, has borne three children. He chose to become pregnant because his wife Nancy was infertile, doing so with cryogenic donated sperm and a syringe, at home. He wrote an article about the experience in The Advocate.[13] The Washington Post further broadened the story on March 25 when blogger Emil Steiner called Beatie the first "legally" pregnant man on record,[16] in reference to certain states' and federal legal recognition of Beatie as a man.[12][13] In 2010, Guinness World Records recognized Beatie as the world's "First Married Man to Give Birth."[17] Beatie gave birth to a girl named Susan Juliette Beatie on June 29, 2008.[18][19] Barbara Walters announced Beatie's second pregnancy on The View,[20] and Beatie gave birth to a boy named Austin Alexander Beatie on June 9, 2009.[21] Beatie gave birth to his third child, a boy named Jensen James Beatie, on July 25, 2010.[22] Beatie has since had a phalloplasty to create an artificial penis and is also considering a hysterectomy.[23]

Yuval Topper, an Israeli transgender man, gave birth to a child on December 28, 2011.[24]

Richard Guzzo, a Canadian man who at the time believed he was trans gendered; gave birth to a succession of children in the years 2001, 2004, 2007 and most recently became the first trans identified male to give birth to natural twins in June of 2011. Although he previously identified as a trans gender male, new medical evidence suggests that he may actually have an intersex condition, CAH.

[Frisivisia]

Why don't you want people marrying objects. Again without quoteing the Bible.

Because I don't want my marriage being changed to the point where it is as meaningless as a man and a filing cabinet.

Why are you so prejudiced against filing cabinets?

[The Realm of God]

Why don't you want people marrying objects. Again without quoteing the Bible.

Deuteronomy 14:23:

And thou shalt command unto him, that thou shalt never marry an idol, for the LORD doth rule it unholy.

Are you testing how much he has read or something?

[The Mongol Ilkhanate]

He's thinking of that one thing with the transgender guy or whatever.
So we can't do that.

But I have provided you with three sources that show we will be able to relatively soon.

Transgender men are men, even if they still have biologically female reproductive organs.

The question of whether transgender men are legally women has 51 different answers, one for each state and DC.

[The Mongol Ilkhanate]

Deuteronomy 14:23:

And thou shalt command unto him, that thou shalt never marry an idol, for the LORD doth rule it unholy.

Are you testing how much he has read or something?

Real Deuteronomy 14:23

And thou shalt eat before the LORD thy God, in the place which he shall choose to place his name there, the tithe of thy corn, of thy wine, and of thine oil, and the firstlings of thy herds and of thy flocks; that thou mayest learn to fear the LORD thy God always.

[Revolutopia]

Why don't you want people marrying objects. Again without quoteing the Bible.

Because I don't want my marriage being changed to the point where it is as meaningless as a man and a filing cabinet.

I don't want my Christianity to be changed to the point where convicted con men from Vermont can call their church a Christian faith and receive government recognition.