Clownfish, the analogy in your reply to Trav breaks down, for it is known that the sexual coupling of homosexuals will never result in children whereas the sexual coupling of the heterosexual infertile couple has the real and hoped for possibility of children.

I’ll leave it for now til tomorrow.

You can lead a horse to water...

' No one, at least not nowadays, argues against interracial marriage while observing the opposite sex distinction, but people do argue against same sex marriage'

So, David, you're admitting that we're gradually dismantling the barriers of prejudice and bigotry, and that marriage has changed as social mores have changed? Well done! Now all you've got to do is stretch your brain cells just that teeny bit further, and concede that, just as it is no longer acceptable to discriminate against people based on race, it is now no longer acceptable to discriminate against people based on sexual orientation.

You're nearly there - you can do it!

Now, my analysis of Trav's argument holds, due to a simple flaw in your response.

'the sexual coupling of the heterosexual infertile couple has the real and hoped for possibility of children'.

If they're genuinely infertile then ipso facto there is no possibility of children.

Therefore my analysis of Trav's argument is still correct. If the conclusion is unsound (that infertile couples cannot marry), then it must be because one or more of the premises is false.

The premise that infertile couples cannot bear and raise children is a priori true, therefore it is the other premise, that marriage is for the purpose of bearing and raising children, which *must* be false.

Therefore your whole argument against same-sex marriage fails.

Trav,

You really are a nasty piece of work, aren’t you. All you can do is throw stones with short, sharp responses in a limp attempt of character assassination. Like a school yard bully, you try to turn others against me by addressing everyone else with unfounded assertions about my intentions on this forum just because what I say makes you uncomfortable.

And I hadn’t even addressed you on this thread yet, either.

Not one thing I said was irrelevant or intended to distract from the topic at hand here and given your abusiveness, I’d say you at least owe it to me to point out this alleged red herring you accuse me of.

Your behavior and attitude is disgraceful. Your cowardly actions and tone are like that of a fearful little school boy with a big chip on his shoulder.

Wake up to yourself.

David Palmer,

“Sky Daddy” was actually in your quote. I didn’t use that term at all. So please cease with the wounded deer act and accusations of inflammatory language - you pulled this card three times in your post!

<<Recorded in the Bible or are you one of these people who believe nothing existed before 100, 200 years ago?>>

No, I’m just one of these people who realises that there’s no reason to believe that those words actually came from a God.

If the Bible really was written by a God, then there’d be no competing holy books. Instead we have this alleged God, who has an important message for mankind, yet he only reveals it to certain individuals, who then record it so that thousands of years after this initial revelation, we have to rely on copies of copies of translations of copies by anonymous authors, with no originals.

There’s no amount of anecdotal and testimonial reports that could be sufficient to justify believing the God claims in the Bible - no amount - and anything that could qualify as a God would understand this not rely on ancient texts communicate to us.

The God that Christians believe in is amazingly stupid if it wants to rely on texts, anecdotal testimony and languages that die off to spread its message to humanity. That’s not a pathway to truth and anything that would qualify as a God should know this.

<<I repeat (ad nauseam) what I said earlier that there are things we can’t not … I would have thought we all understood what “one flesh” meant whether the phrase come from the Bible or not.>>

Yeah, I got it the first time. Thanks. But whether we all understand what “one flesh” is or not, is irrelevant; it’s whether we accept the sentiment that matters.

<<I chose the natural law argument because it is real, substantial, what none, you included “can’t not know”.>>

Yes, but as I pointed out, you still slipped God in under the radar (without actually dropping the ‘G’ word) to add some transcendental meaning to marriage.

I don't believe marriage is to have children. I believe marriage to be between two people of opposite sex.
If you want some sort of union between the biological challenged then go forth and find another word. Do not use marriage, you're offending normal people.