What is the purpose of marriage?

[Noomi]

There is more evidence for the existance of God than there is that you exist. And scientists cannot create living organism from inert substances, what makes you think a mindless universe could.

We didn't get here because God created man and woman. Ever heard of evolution?

And we evolved from want exactly? Living things have never been proven to originate from any inanimate object.

Do some research. Go to science class, and get your head of the Bible.

 

[Unkotare]

Why don't you take your atheist rant to the religion forum?

 

[Politico]

There is no evidence that there is a God, and certainly no evidence he created anyone.

There is more evidence for the existance of God than there is that you exist.

That makes absolutely no sense.

 

[PJC]

More often than not, the widow and widower have children by previous marriages. And as for those who are infertile, all I can say is may God bless them. My wife and I had trouble conceiving a baby. And in part I blame perhaps the effects of the "pill." My wife had endometriosis. However, we did have OUR baby after much prayer and seeking medical treatment (Insurance coverage and doctor I believe were provided by God). God blessed at least four childless BIBLE couples with a child. None of them were "homosexual."

Your 1stnsentence argues is that as long as a gay couple or straight widow and widower have had children before in previous marriages, there is no problem with them getting married. They've done their part by populating already. 2nd sentence is a deflection, you never actually answered about those who are infertile. Should it be illegal for them to marry, yes or no? Your last 2 sentences seem to be saying as long as a couple is a "bible" couple cool, but you don't give a rat's ass about non-bible couples and gays. Very christ-like of you. maybe you need a weeeee bit more praying for guidance.

God had nothing to do with Homosexuality except allowing man to invent it. 1st A gay relationship is not the foundation marriage was founded on. And the former married couple has already proven that they can live heterosexually. 2nd Infertile couples don't know/imagine they are infertile until after marriage. And infertility is not always permanent. Who knows? 3rd I do care about non religious, unsaved couples ---- otherwise I wouldn't bother to reponsed or care to debate the issue. And that is very Christ-like even if I do say so myself.

“God had nothing to do with it”??? Really??? Homosexuality exists in nature in a wide variety of animals and in man. I reckon you’re saying that mankind must have forced all those poor animals to engage in gay sex right after man invented it, eh? Your claim is ridiculously irrational rubbish but funny as hell. Yuk yuk yuk.

“The foundation marriage was founded on”? a wee bit circular. Regardless, that argument should then apply to infertile couples and be used to deny them the right to marry. Since it is not, your argument is inconsistent and is therefore illogical. If a premise does not apply to all similar circumstances and there is no rational, fact-based justification for the disparity, then that premise is illogical.

“proven that they can live heterosexually”? A woman who has produced children from her former heterosexual marriage. She divorces and in her second marriage marries a woman. She has also already proven that she can live heterosexually. Therefore she should be allowed to marry the woman she loves, according to your argument. Since you're claiming she still cannot, your argument with that tripe uses the fallacy of inconsistency and is therefore nonsensical tripe.

“Infertile couples (and here you are clearly implying all of them) don’t know/imagine they are infertile until after marriage” is an assumption based upon no evidence. How do you know all infertile couples don’t know/imagine until after marriage?

Not always permanent? Aaakhaaa, I see. so the ones that are permanent should be denied marriage, according to your argument.

Your arguments here are chock full of irrational and fallacious inconsistencies, bare assertions, and assumptions thus they are worth squat. Sorry.

Your “caring” is touching (it really warms my heart…..oops .....wait…sorry that was just a bit of gas), but is as wanted as a Muslim extremist’s “caring” that we should all submit to Islam and that Shariah law be imposed on everyone.
I don’t need that kind of “caring”, thanks.

Do you not see the striking similarity between your desires for all humans to bend to your religious tenets and Muslim terrorists’ desires for all humans to bend to their religious tenets?

Your judgmental condemnation of others is not at all Christ-like; even if I do say so myself. I think you need to study your bible juuuuuust a wee bit more.

 

[Noomi]

Why don't you take your atheist rant to the religion forum?

It's not an atheist rant. I am not an atheist. I am just saying that he can't make his claim without backing it up with evidence - which he has failed to do.

 

[PJC]

There is no evidence that there is a God, and certainly no evidence he created anyone.

There is more evidence for the existance of God than there is that you exist. And scientists cannot create living organism from inert substances, what makes you think a mindless universe could.

Okay, produce your evidence. We'll wait.......

 

[editec]

God had nothing to do with Homosexuality except allowing man to invent it. 1st A gay relationship is not the foundation marriage was founded on. And the former married couple has already proven that they can live heterosexually. 2nd Infertile couples don't know/imagine they are infertile until after marriage. And infertility is not always permanent. Who knows? 3rd I do care about non religious, unsaved couples ---- otherwise I wouldn't bother to reponsed or care to debate the issue. And that is very Christ-like even if I do say so myself.

Marriage is an invention of man. Adam and Eve weren't married. And Adam got them booted out of Eden for having sex with the woman, which was against god's orders. Sounds pretty gay to me.

God created Adam and Eve. They were booted out for eating from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. It had nothing to do with sex.

And as punishment men must earn their daily bread (Curse of Adam) and women must bear children (curse of Eve).

Sex, it turns out, is a curse.

Women are reminded of that fact monthly.

Turns out working is ALSO a curse, according to Genesis.

After thirty -five years of laboring for my daily bread, I know that I am totally convinced.

 

[Unkotare]

If you think work is a curse, you are doing the wrong work or you are doing it the wrong way.

 

[editec]

If you think work is a curse, you are doing the wrong work or you are doing it the wrong way.

I had to work at plenty of jobs that I loathed from the age of 14 till about 45.

Perhaps that has not been your fate.

Lucky you, kiddo.

 

[ima]

God had nothing to do with Homosexuality except allowing man to invent it. 1st A gay relationship is not the foundation marriage was founded on. And the former married couple has already proven that they can live heterosexually. 2nd Infertile couples don't know/imagine they are infertile until after marriage. And infertility is not always permanent. Who knows? 3rd I do care about non religious, unsaved couples ---- otherwise I wouldn't bother to reponsed or care to debate the issue. And that is very Christ-like even if I do say so myself.

Marriage is an invention of man. Adam and Eve weren't married. And Adam got them booted out of Eden for having sex with the woman, which was against god's orders. Sounds pretty gay to me.

God created Adam and Eve. They were booted out for eating from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. It had nothing to do with sex.

God also made Adam and Eve naked. So shouldn't we all be naked 24/7? Maybe a fig leaf to cover the privates?

 

[NYcarbineer]

There is no evidence that there is a God, and certainly no evidence he created anyone.

There is more evidence for the existance of God than there is that you exist. And scientists cannot create living organism from inert substances, what makes you think a mindless universe could.

Scientists can't run an experiment lasting millions of years.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Civil marriage is not a religious institution, let alone a Christian institution.

 

[sfcalifornia]

There is no evidence that there is a God, and certainly no evidence he created anyone.

There is more evidence for the existance of God than there is that you exist. And scientists cannot create living organism from inert substances, what makes you think a mindless universe could.

What makes you think they never will?

And when they do, what will your "proof" be then?

 

[Unkotare]

If you think work is a curse, you are doing the wrong work or you are doing it the wrong way.

I had to work at plenty of jobs that I loathed from the age of 14 till about 45.

Perhaps that has not been your fate.

Lucky you, kiddo.

From the age of 14 you should have figured out that you are a man and adjusted your attitude accordingly.

 

[Yurt]

People here are not in MENSA.

says the guy who thinks a straw man is the same thing as a slippery slope...

A slippery slope argument IS a Strawman by definition.

no, you're dead wrong and dante dumb

 

[Seawytch]

says the guy who thinks a straw man is the same thing as a slippery slope...

A slippery slope argument IS a Strawman by definition.

no, you're dead wrong and dante dumb

Of course it is, look it up. Gotta head back to work so I can't do the work for you, I'm afraid. Don't be lazy.

 

[Yurt]

already posted the definitions for dante in another thread. trust me, they are not the same thing. they are distinct and separate logical fallacies.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

People here are not in MENSA.

says the guy who thinks a straw man is the same thing as a slippery slope...

nope, but if you were honest and had integrity you'd remember Dante used a term in conjunction with other logical fallacies: straw man, red herring, slippery slope.



The statement in question was a straw man argument used in conjunction with a slippery slope.

 

[Yurt]

People here are not in MENSA.

says the guy who thinks a straw man is the same thing as a slippery slope...

nope, but if you were honest and had integrity you'd remember Dante used a term in conjunction with other logical fallacies: straw man, red herring, slippery slope.



The statement in question was a straw man argument used in conjunction with a slippery slope.

you're dumb. seriously dumb.

he never claimed someone said polygamy would be next you dishonest tool. he said polygamy would be next, thus, it could not be a straw man as he never indicated anyone, other than himself, made the argument.

dumb dante

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

says the guy who thinks a straw man is the same thing as a slippery slope...

nope, but if you were honest and had integrity you'd remember Dante used a term in conjunction with other logical fallacies: straw man, red herring, slippery slope.



The statement in question was a straw man argument used in conjunction with a slippery slope.

you're dumb. seriously dumb.

he never claimed someone said polygamy would be next you dishonest tool. he said polygamy would be next, thus, it could not be a straw man as he never indicated anyone, other than himself, made the argument.

dumb dante

plural marriage, polygamy will be next - multi sex, multi partner or muti partner same sex ... a solid solution for overpopulation.

Straw Man argument

An argument similar to reductio ad absurdum often seen in polemical debate is the straw man logical fallacy. A straw man argument attempts to refute a given proposition by showing that a slightly different or inaccurate form of the proposition (the "straw man") is absurd or ridiculous, relying on the audience not to notice that the argument does not actually apply to the original proposition. For example:

Politician A: "We should not serve schoolchildren sugary desserts with lunch and further worsen the obesity epidemic by doing so."
Politician B: "What, do you want our children to starve?"

dante, dante, dante....

polygamy exists

you just screwed your own argument up, again.

i can't believe you still think a slippery slope argument is the same thing as a straw man.

incests exists too. Polygamy is illegal and the conversation and legal battles are about the legality of same-sex marriage, and whether the state will recognize same-sex marriages, not whether same-sex marriages exist. Gays have been getting married in religious ceremonies since the 1970s as far as I know.

ok. what is your point and how does this post explain how you don't know the difference between a straw man argument and a slippery slope argument?

fact is knowing the differences between two distinct logical fallacies, and knowing how to spot them when two or more are used in conjunction with each other...

poor yurt, butt hurt again

...

Politician A: "We should not serve schoolchildren sugary desserts with lunch and further worsen the obesity epidemic by doing so."
Politician B: "What, do you want our children to starve?"

A) Same-Sex/Gay Marriage: "Should we have Civil Unions for same-sex couples and Marriage for opposite-sex couples? Should we have separate but equal?"

B) polygamy will be next

------

Using a straw man argument in conjunction with other logical fallacies such as a slippery slope argument does not negate anything. Framing the argument as 'allowing same-sex marriages will open the door to polygamy' (slippery slope), Except:

Gay Marriages exist and Polygamy has already been ruled on in America (We fought that battle). The purpose some people have in introducing polygamy into a discussion about same-sex marriages is to do what straw man arguments are meant to do: knock down the arguments that same-sex marriages are about equality between two consenting adults of the same sex.

The two consenting adults argument is about equality or separate but equal. Introducing polygamy re-frames the debate so one side can be easily knocked down as absurd: Introducing an absurdity to make the whole argument appear absurd.

In the context I framed the conversation, introducing polygamy, child brides/grooms, and immediate family into the discussion is the use of a straw man