PubliusInfinitum
Rookie
- Aug 18, 2008
- 6,805
- 729
- 0
- Banned
- #61
Marriage and sexual activity are mutually exclusive...
Yeah man, I hear ya... just as hetero-sexual vaginal intercourse and conception are mutually exclusive. All ya need to get there is reject any premise which recognizes the moral imperative.
I did not say that heterosexual vaginal intercourse and conception are mutually exclusive...where are you getting that.
Just the moral imperative ... that's all.
I said that marriage and sexual activity are mutually exclusive.
Yeah, I got that... and I used the above to illustrate the idiocy of the assessment. There's a moral imperative to not exercise one's right to the detriment of another. You want to assert that there's no down side to anyone else when two people of the same gender engage in the pretense that they're married... there are real and certain ramifications to such, just as there are ramifications to hetero-sexual vaginal intercourse... and the cultural standards surrounding each are there as a result of those ramifications.
Is sexual activity a requirement for marriage? Is marriage a requirement for sexual activity?
Yeah ... it is... as marriage is the JOINING of two people... where two become ONE... (see the metaphor coming into play here?) Thus the consummation thing... to complete marriage: to make a marriage legally complete and fully valid by having sexual intercourse ...
In fact, if you wanted the species to proliferate, you would not allow monogamy.
BTW... would you do my a favor and PM me, when you find yourself lamenting the perils of overpopulation? I'd like to chime in with my thoughts on the moral imperative, sustainable principles, monogomous marital relationships... and how such promotes regulatory growth...
Homosexual marriage really has little effect on overpopulation.
Well in fact it does... ya see, there's a species of reasoning which says that the proliferation of homosexuality is a direct biological result of population stress... it's a noted emperical reaction, which has long been noted in the studies of such.
So in summary, you would advocate that society NOT allow the right for two men to marry as their marriage would not benefit our culture by helping it to reproduce and grow.
I DO advocate that no man has a right to marry another man... as to do so demonstrates abnormal behavior; and is a sign of an unhealthy culture; and this due to the failure of the culture to maintain sufficiently high standards to prevent such; thus the remedy for such being to RAISE the standards of behavior, to hold ourselves to HIGHER standard, which will result in the restablishment of a healthy culture. And this on the certainty that to continue to lower the standard of personal behavior will and can only result in further cultural decadence.
However, you also want to make sure that our culture and species does not grow too quickly, so you would also advocate that society NOT allow people the right to non-monogamous reproduction.
Not a complex issue here sis... Everyone tends to their OWN responsibility; where each is able to sustain their OWN families and it all works itself out.
It only becomes problematic where we excuse bad behavior, concede responsibility for our families to the others, such as the State and hold no regard for the ramifications of our actions on anyone else.
Essentially, you believe in preservation of individual's rights, as long as you approve of the rights they wish to exercise.
As far as I'm concerned, individuals can do any damn thing they want, as long as what they do does not usurp the means of another to exercise their rights.
Again, it's not complicated... until you begin to rationalize around the immutable principles shich sustain it... to accommodate you particular kink.