If you don't understand what I'm getting at you could just say so instead of getting all defensive
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by filtherton
If you want to make a passionate plea for the acceptance of incest within the framework of an argument for homosexual marriage, by all means. Unfortunately, advocating for gay marriage using terms that could also be used to advocate for incestuous marriage does not mean that one is advocating for incestuous marriage.
|
Noone is advocating incestuous marriage.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by filtherton
You don't hear a lot of pro-2nd amendment people advocating for the right to bear nuclear arms, even though they probably should to be consistent.
|
I'm not even american and I know that the 2nd amendment states that civilians should have the right to bear arms in order to maintain a well regulated militia. Noone would expect a civilian militia to have nuclear weapons.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by filtherton
Newtonian physics doesn't even hold water under all circumstances.
|
Newtonian mechanics were designed to work under the circumstances Newton could experiment within. ie everyday objects on a macroscopic scale. I imagine you're referring to quantum mechanics, but since on a macroscopic level there is so little quantum effect as to be unmeasurable in most circumstances, Newtonian mechanics still holds for the purposes which is was designed.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by filtherton
Me: No, you don't understand. You're interpreting my statements in a way that is convenient for your purposes, which are to skirt the discussion of whether there are any logically consistent reasons to oppose gay marriage, and instead turn the discussion into one that is completely irrelevant to the issue.
|
I was using your statements to determine whether they are logically consistent under all situations that are possible within your definition of marriage.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by filtherton
I concede, for the purpose of exposing your complete lack of anything else to talk about in this thread ... that the requirements of marriage should be based solely on the genitalia of those involved. Now, enlighten me as to why gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry. Tell me why the institution of marriage should be solely limited to one man and one woman.
|
Is the section in bold what you actually meant to put, or is it a typo. Either way could you clarify it? Thanks
