No, you’re setting fertile straight couples as the model while claiming infertile straight couples fit the model.
They don’t.
[quote]forlife wrote:
No, you’re setting fertile straight couples as the model while claiming infertile straight couples fit the model.
They don’t.[/quote]
Ah, new tactic, I see. You get to tell me what I’m arguing. Doesn’t work like that. I’m setting straight couples as the model.
New tactic, I see. Saying something is the model, then changing it when shown how it is logically inconsistent.
Or did you forget:
[quote]forlife wrote:
New tactic, I see. Saying something is the model, then changing it when shown how it is logically inconsistent.
Or did you forget:
That would be the smallest unit designed to naturally produce, and raise, its own offspring.
[/quote]
Unless you’re arguement is that straight couples aren’t capable of reproducing, you’ve failed.
My argument is that you are sanctioning the marriage of infertile straight couples, while shifting your “model” midstream to suit your preexisting bias.
That article is fucking retarded. There is no Biblical case for gay marriage. Either you accept it on secular grounds or you oppose it on religious grounds. Liberal Christianity is intellectual diarrhea.
Because the bible is just that black and white.
[quote]forlife wrote:
My argument is that you are sanctioning the marriage of infertile straight couples, while shifting your “model” midstream to suit your preexisting bias.[/quote]
False. My model is the straight couple. That has never changed. Infertile couples still present the model. 1 male and 1 female, in a committed relationship. As long as that’s the model we incentivize, nature takes care of the sought after benefit. Children born, and raised by biological parents. But, you already understood this. You just can’t afford to conceede the point.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Because the bible is just that black and white.[/quote]
On this matter, yes.
[quote]Bigd1970 wrote:
Makavali, What do you mean who is forceing churches to do anything?
I think I explained it quite clearly. If you still don’t understand all it will require is a little research on your part to find the answer. The gay community is taking church leaders to court and sueing them civilly, which in turn forces them to either spend the monies necessary to defend themselves, or bow down to their demands to perform the ceremonies.
I don’t know how it can be more clear. Look it up. You will see it is happening. It is happening in England, Canada, and Mass.[/quote]
That is wrong. But you’ll find the gay “community” doesn’t speak for all gay people, nor does it represent the majority of gay people.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
False. My model is the straight couple. That has never changed. Infertile couples still present the model. [/quote]
You changed your tune, and you know it.
Let’s look at your model in a little more detail. Why would an infertile straight couple present a model for society if they are incapable of having children?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
On this matter, yes.[/quote]
Right, the bible is only black and white on the matters you agree with. All those other pesky issues are up for interpretation.
[quote]belligerent wrote:
That article is fucking retarded. There is no Biblical case for gay marriage. Either you accept it on secular grounds or you oppose it on religious grounds. Liberal Christianity is intellectual diarrhea.[/quote]
Religion is intellectual diarrhea. It has no place in politics or science. But people seem to forget that.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Because the bible is just that black and white.[/quote]
The Bible is absolute. Prerequisite to acceptance of the content is the belief that it (the Bible) is the infalliable word of God. If you accept any part of it, you must acknowledge its infalliability, and so then you must accept all of it. If you deny any part of it, then you deny its infalliability, and so there is no reason to believe anything else written therein. There is no room for ridiculous alternative interpretations in relation to modern times.
Liberal Christians are simply not Christians at all; instead, they are new age secularists who cling to the idea of an afterlife.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Sloth wrote:
False. My model is the straight couple. That has never changed. Infertile couples still present the model.
You changed your tune, and you know it.
Let’s look at your model in a little more detail. Why would an infertile straight couple present a model for society if they are incapable of having children?[/quote]
I have not changed my tune. Please quote where I’ve said only fertile couples are my model. Or, they solely serve my model? If you had a shred of honesty in you, you’d realize that is not the case BECAUSE I’VE BEEN ARGUEING, THIS WHOLE TIME, AND EVEN IN ANOTHER THREAD, THAT INFERTILE COUPLES STILL SERVE THE DESIRED MODEL!
You will cut the crap, and acknowledge this, before I answer your question (for the umpteenth time).
[quote]Makavali wrote:
belligerent wrote:
That article is fucking retarded. There is no Biblical case for gay marriage. Either you accept it on secular grounds or you oppose it on religious grounds. Liberal Christianity is intellectual diarrhea.
Religion is intellectual diarrhea. It has no place in politics or science. But people seem to forget that.[/quote]
True Christians operate based on FAITH which is not even in the realm of intellect. Liberal Christians don’t have faith, they just make all this stupid shit up as they go along.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Sloth wrote:
False. My model is the straight couple. That has never changed. Infertile couples still present the model.
You changed your tune, and you know it.
Let’s look at your model in a little more detail. Why would an infertile straight couple present a model for society if they are incapable of having children?[/quote]
Especially when only one partner is infertile. That would remove at least one person from the breeding pool and run contrary to the supposed goals of marriage.
You originally said:
[quote]Infertile, or not, it is still one more committed couple consisting of the smallest unit (pay attention)
biologically…anatomically…designed…built…capable…of producing and raising it’s own offspring. 1 male, 1 female. A model for society…[/quote]
This model excludes infertile couples because THEY AREN’T CABABLE OF REPRODUCING.
When I pointed this out, you changed your tune:
Make up your fucking mind.