CDZ Marriage IS the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

[JakeStarkey]

A logical weakness of Key's natural law reasoning is that one man- one woman construct girds the argument for polygamy. The man marries one woman at a time, and the woman are not married to each other. Father Abraham roles over in his grave and says, "I told you yokes so!"

In fact, marriage is merely a social construct created by cultures at various times in various ways.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

EDIT

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Yes I am. The only difference is that I can support my opinions... Because my opinions are soundly reasoned, resting in valid logical constructs.

And yes... It is as easy as I make it look.

Oh? What reasoned, valid logical constructs would those be?

Mod Edit to comply with CDZ Rules.

So with that said, let's review the ' logically valid, sound reasoning at issue:

Nature provides that humanity is composed of two distinct but complimenting genders.

Each respectively designed to join with the other, both physically and emotionally which by extension defines marriage through that default standard, establishing that Marriage is the Joining of One Male and One Female; two distinct bodies, joining into one sustainable body... which is essential to the propagation of the species and due to the complimenting nature of the respective genders, such provides for the training and nurturing of the progeny... with the male serving the needs of female, the female serving the need of male and both serving the needs of the children. With the institution itself serving as the as the nucleus of the culture; essential to the viability of nothing less than civilization itself.

 

[CMike]

ROFLMAO!!! Soon it we be legal in every state.

So what?

Not one single male who is playing house with another male and likewise for the females will be married.

Sure they will. Marriage is a legal construct. It's what ever the lawmakers decide it is.

So it's okay to marry multiple wives. Heck you can even marry your mother based on those terms.

 

[JakeStarkey]

There you go breaking the Board rules again, Keys, slicing and dicing, so I put the whole post back in for context, which you are clamoring for.

"A logical weakness of Key's natural law reasoning is that one man- one woman construct girds the argument for polygamy. The man marries one woman at a time, and the woman are not married to each other. Father Abraham roles over in his grave and says, "I told you yokes so!"

In fact, marriage is merely a social construct created by cultures at various times in various ways."

Yes, for the addled Relativist, the natural standard of marriage which establishes Marriage as the Joining of One Man and One Woman, requires that Marriage is NOT what the Natural Standard of Marriage establishes.

ROFLMNAO! You can NOT make this crap up.

You are confused, are you not?

 

[JakeStarkey]

ROFLMAO!!! Soon it we be legal in every state.

So what?

Not one single male who is playing house with another male and likewise for the females will be married.

Sure they will. Marriage is a legal construct. It's what ever the lawmakers decide it is.

So it's okay to marry multiple wives. Heck you can even marry your mother based on those terms.

Exactly. Inca and Ptolemian royalty, among dozens of examples, married blood relations (uncle niece, aunt nephew, brother sister); Abraham and Isaac (twice!) allowed their wives polyandrous husbands; and many other examples exist in human history.

The God of the Bible allowed variations of the "contract", which Keys tries to keep hidden.

Marriage is a social construct, not one of Natural Law.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

ROFLMAO!!! Soon it we be legal in every state.

So what?

Not one single male who is playing house with another male and likewise for the females will be married.

Sure they will. Marriage is a legal construct. It's what ever the lawmakers decide it is.

So it's okay to marry multiple wives. Heck you can even marry your mother based on those terms.

What the **** do I care if you want to marry three woman? One wife is stressful enough. If you want that kind of misery be my guest.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

ROFLMAO!!! Soon it we be legal in every state.

So what?

Not one single male who is playing house with another male and likewise for the females will be married.

Sure they will. Marriage is a legal construct. It's what ever the lawmakers decide it is.

So it's okay to marry multiple wives. Heck you can even marry your mother based on those terms.

Exactly. Inca and Ptolemian royalty, among dozens of examples, married blood relations (uncle niece, aunt nephew, brother sister); Abraham and Isaac (twice!) allowed their wives polyandrous husbands; and many other examples exist in human history.

The God of the Bible allowed variations of the "contract", which Keys tries to keep hidden.

Marriage is a social construct, not one of Natural Law.

OH! Well Ok.. SO you're saying that there are civilizations which rest upon unsound sexual practices, is alive and well, prosperous and viable, despite its hierarchy having succumbed to deviant sexualities?

Now... just for my own edification, where might one find the Inca and "Ptolemian" cultures?

I'll take a zip code, or a map grid.

 

[JakeStarkey]

ROFLMAO!!! Soon it we be legal in every state.

So what?

Not one single male who is playing house with another male and likewise for the females will be married.

Sure they will. Marriage is a legal construct. It's what ever the lawmakers decide it is.

So it's okay to marry multiple wives. Heck you can even marry your mother based on those terms.

Exactly. Inca and Ptolemian royalty, among dozens of examples, married blood relations (uncle niece, aunt nephew, brother sister); Abraham and Isaac (twice!) allowed their wives polyandrous husbands; and many other examples exist in human history.

The God of the Bible allowed variations of the "contract", which Keys tries to keep hidden.

Marriage is a social construct, not one of Natural Law.

OH! Well Ok.. SO you're saying that there are civilizations which rest upon unsound sexual practices, is alive and well, prosperous and viable, despite its hierarchy having succumbed to deviant sexualities?

Now... just for my own edification, where might one find the Inca and "Ptolemian" cultures?

I'll take a zip code, or a map grid.

You keep slipping out of the rules.

YOU said those things, not me. You have not shown the examples are deviant: your opinion is immaterial, Keys.

And I see you ignored the examples of Abrahamic polyandry.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The notion that requires that opinions are immaterial, means by definition that the opinion that presented that pearl is immaterial.

This is a clue, with regard to the species of reasoning that denies the tangible record of this discussion, wherein undeniable traits witnessed by every human being that has ever lived, have been presented as the basis which establishes Homosexuality as being entirely unsuitable for marriage.

Understand that in truthful terms, there is no longer a means to consider these would-be 'contributors' to be honest brokers. As there is no means for a person who possess the intellectual means to type, to be able to honestly claim that they have not witnessed the record in which they have participated.

The claim that the tangible evidence of the human physiological design which demonstrates in simple, straightforward, unambiguous terms that homosexuality not only deviates from the Human Sexual Standard, it deviates as far from that standard as is humanly possible, where the subjects being considered remain exclusively human. There is no means to honestly contest this simple point.

The traits demonstrated in the human sexuality standard, extend into the standard of marriage itself... for the critical, essential purpose of sustaining a viable civilization.

The Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality, doesn't give a red rat's rear about anything beyond their quest to find legitimacy, without the burden of altering their behavior to comport with legitimacy.

This post has been edited by a Moderator in order to put it in compliance with the Clean Debate Zone Rules. To refresh your memory - NO flaming, put downs, insults etc - the idea here is "civil" debate.

 

[Coyote]

Some of you need to remember that this is the CDZ - no insults, no put downs, no flaming. Y'all can handle that, I'm sure. I'm counting on you

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Yes... It's not fair to the opposition that they should be subjected to fact. Thank you for remov

The notion that requires that opinions are immaterial, means by definition that the opinion that presented that pearl is immaterial.

This is a clue, with regard to the species of reasoning that denies the tangible record of this discussion, wherein undeniable traits witnessed by every human being that has ever lived, have been presented as the basis which establishes Homosexuality as being entirely unsuitable for marriage.

Understand that in truthful terms, there is no longer a means to consider these would-be 'contributors' to be honest brokers. As there is no means for a person who possess the intellectual means to type, to be able to honestly claim that they have not witnessed the record in which they have participated.

The claim that the tangible evidence of the human physiological design which demonstrates in simple, straightforward, unambiguous terms that homosexuality not only deviates from the Human Sexual Standard, it deviates as far from that standard as is humanly possible, where the subjects being considered remain exclusively human. There is no means to honestly contest this simple point.

The traits demonstrated in the human sexuality standard, extend into the standard of marriage itself... for the critical, essential purpose of sustaining a viable civilization.

The Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality, doesn't give a red rat's rear about anything beyond their quest to find legitimacy, without the burden of altering their behavior to comport with legitimacy.

This post has been edited by a Moderator in order to put it in compliance with the Clean Debate Zone Rules. To refresh your memory - NO flaming, put downs, insults etc - the idea here is "civil" debate.

Moderated civil debate require that the moderator step in when points that have been refuted are reintroduced.

Debate where refuted points are chronically reintroduced cannot remain civil.

Because the act of reintroducing refuted points imparts the certainty of severe intellectual dishonesty or deficiency.

Of course such a forum wouldn't be very practical in that within hours of opening... Ya couldn't get a leftist to participate in that forum for any reason and for obvious reasons.

 

[JakeStarkey]

These are Keys' words, not mine: "SO you're saying that there are civilizations which rest upon unsound sexual practices, is alive and well, prosperous and viable, despite its hierarchy having succumbed to deviant sexualities?" I never said anything of the sort.

Keys describes himself well with his own word: "Debate where refuted points are chronically reintroduced cannot remain civil. // Because the act of reintroducing refuted points imparts the certainty of severe intellectual dishonesty or deficiency."

Keys, you continually reintroduce material that has been absolutely rebutted.

Your opinions are your own.

You are not an authority on natural law.

You can't rebut that marriage is a social construct.

You completely ignored that Abraham once and Isaac twice gave their wives into polyandrous relationships.

And so on and so forth.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

These are Keys' words, not mine: "SO you're saying that there are civilizations which rest upon unsound sexual practices, is alive and well, prosperous and viable, despite its hierarchy having succumbed to deviant sexualities?" I never said anything of the sort.

Keys describes himself well with his own word: "Debate where refuted points are chronically reintroduced cannot remain civil. // Because the act of reintroducing refuted points imparts the certainty of severe intellectual dishonesty or deficiency."

Keys, you continually reintroduce material that has been absolutely rebutted.

Your opinions are your own.

You are not an authority on natural law.

You can't rebut that marriage is a social construct.

You completely ignored that Abraham once and Isaac twice gave their wives into polyandrous relationships.

And so on and so forth.

"Keys" is not at issue; let alone on trial, here.

All that means is that you've lost that point and in a legitimate 'civil debate forum' you would forfeit the means to advance such in the future without substantial penalty.

All opinions are the property of the individual advancing them... and if you're trying to establish the rule that opinions are invalid, then you should consider that such would have an unenviable effect on your opinions as well... and given that you've nothing but opinion with no demonstrated means to produce anything else. I'd suggest ya withdraw that would-be 'rule'. As it's tantamount to rhetorical suicide, in your case.

The only time I reintroduce a point, is where that point refuted argument, which is being reintroduced.

I haven't ignored Abraham, I simply do not see Abraham as being relevant. In that Abraham was being directly guided by God in circumstances which bear little to no relevance to anything we're dealing with here. Unless you're a founding Jewish King, growing Judea at the right hand of God.

I would ask, that if you feel that this is true, that you bring it to the attention of the board. IF not, then we can move on.

I will stipulate that any Jewish founders who are 'begatting' at the behest of the Creator of the Universe to populate a kingdom, are certainly free to scrupulously follow the directives of the deity, as such are prescribed; which in Abraham's case was that he take hundreds of wives.

Noting further, that such remains in keeping with the human sexual standard, wherein One Man Joins with One Woman.

Now to this point at least, we have no foundational Kings of Judea participating in the debate... so unless one comes along who needs to argue that by holy order they must procreate a nation at the behest of the Creator of the Universe... I move that we set this point as 'covered'. and leave it to the looming debate for the Mormons, who needed to populate Utah, a century and a half ago.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Keys, (1) you are lying when you assign words to me I did not write.. (2) you ignore that Abraham and Isaac's social constructs of marriage included polyandry. (3) the God of Abraham has nothing to do with the definition of marriage in our secular world. (4) opinions are only valid if substantiated, which you have failed to do; (5) because you are not an authority; I have to offer nothing until you have made a substantiated, valid point. (6) I have lost nothing in a CDZ forum, because you have only offered your opinion.

Marriage is a social construct invented long after men and women, in a variety of combinations, began living together. There is not only one valid marriage definition of "one man and one woman."

 

[bodecea]

I don't understand why anyone would argue that Marriage is a social construct....it's self-evident.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

I don't understand why anyone would argue that Marriage is a social construct....it's self-evident.

A social contract does not preclude a physiological basis.

The premise is that anyone can enter into a contract with anyone else.

That premise is false on a number of levels... Not the least of which, where the contract requires license...

The natural standard of marriage requires that all contracts be between One Man and One Woman.

If anything is self-evident within this issue, it is that.

 

[JakeStarkey]

A social contract does not preclude a physiological basis = unsupported assertion

The natural standard of marriage requires that all contracts be between One Man and One Woman = unsupported assertion

Keys is not the authority to make those assertions true.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

A social contract does not preclude a physiological basis = unsupported assertion

Nonsense... the assertion is supported by the self-evident fact that contracts; social or otherwise require that the signatories must be qualified to enter into the agreement.

To be qualified for marriage, one must apply for the license with a person of distinct from their gender. Because Nature designed the species with two distinct but complimenting genders; each, respectively designed to join with the other.

This is a fact of nature. To firmly maintain that this fact does not exist, is to maintain a belief or impression despite such being contradicted by reality and the rational argument which sets the undeniable elements of human physiology into evidence; natural processes known to every human being... and to deny such is a presentation of the mental disorder, OKA: Delusion.

The natural standard of marriage requires that all contracts be between One Man and One Woman = unsupported assertion.

As noted above, to deny the natural standard of marriage; founded in the human sexual standard established by no less an authority than human physiology.

To argue that reality is meaningless, is to present delusion.

Keys is not the authority to make those assertions true.

Nature is the authority, the reality of which, makes those assertions true.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Keys' keeps insisting he is an authority. He argues

The assertion is supported by the self-evident fact that contracts; social or otherwise require that the signatories must be qualified to enter into the agreement.

To be qualified for marriage, one must apply for the license with a person of distinct from their gender. Because Nature designed the species with two distinct but complimenting genders; each, respectively designed to join with the other.

This is a fact of nature.

The bolded above is the error. One, it is mere assertion with no authority. Two, it is a fact of nature that two men or two women can have sex. Three, it is a fact of history that the definition of marriage has varied, with in terms of time, polygamy being the most prolific of relationships.

Not only is keys not an authority, he is an inadequate philosopher.