In any case, Reality is Reality and does not depend on human observation, unless you subscribe to Bohr’s view of the Universe, (Copenhagen Interpretation), which I don’t.

Me miss the boat? I think you’re the only all at sea…

Done, Dennis – it’s done. Sorry about your trucks and taxis, you have missed the boat in both cases

marriage |ˈmarij|
noun
1 the formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife.
• a similar long-term relationship between partners of the same sex.
• a relationship between married people or the period for which it lasts : a happy marriage | the children from his first marriage.
• figurative a combination or mixture of two or more elements : a marriage of jazz, pop, blues, and gospel.
2 (in pinochle and other card games) a combination of a king and queen of the same suit.

If it’s deterministic it isn’t voluntary. The subject had no choice or alternative, he is merely reacting; voluntary means undertaken of one’s own free will.

SPC (2,064) Says: January 27th, 2013 at 1:59 am
Dennis Horne (498) Says: January 25th, 2013 at 11:39 pm

You said that marriage law has never allowed homosexual acts.

1. It has allowed homosexual men and lesbian women to be married to opposite sex partners (across history).
2. I don’t think there ever been a national government marriage law that prohibited use of the partners hand on genital areas, oral sex and anal sex on the marriage bed – there have at times been laws against sodomy (including oral sex and anal sex) in the society in which marriage existed. But at those times there may have also been a tolerance for violence towards a spouse including rape and rules that limited spousal testimony.

1. No, I didn’t say that marriage law has never allowed homosexual acts. I said marriage, or the institution of marriage, has never included homosexual acts. I phrase it that way (acts) because I KNOW homosexuals have the right to marry – they already marriage equality.

2. The institution of marriage has never included homosexual activity, whatever else you say doesn’t modify the statement.

Of course we can redefine any word we choose. We could call a truck a bus if we want to; good luck at the bus stop getting a truck to stop for you.

Gynaecologists could start using the word “cunt” instead of vagina. Let’s see how popular that is with the ladies. Only a word.

We could remove the distinction between male and female altogether. Wait a minute, that’s what we’re going to do.

Homosexuals don’t want to be married, they just want the word. I want it. It’s not fair. Why can’t we call it marriage, it’s just the same thing only a different orientation … Boo hoo hoo.

You say you want a gay adoption debate.

First, single people – including gays – can adopt now. These gays can form relationships later.

Second, if same sex partner options include marriage, then the partner of a homosexual/lesbian parent becomes step-parent automatically.

Gays in civil unions/de facto relationships who want to become parents of their partners children could simply upgrade their relationship to a marriage – thus the marriage would also be for them a way to build a family.

Once there are same sex marriages, the gay adoption debate is the last issue.

Then the incongruity of a single homosexual male/lesbian female being able to adopt, whereas a same sex couple could not, would be an issue.

But for heterosexual couples, infertility is the drive to adoption – increasing as people delay breeding. This may become true for lesbian partners. Homosexual men of course have the option of breeding by them and shared parenting. That would result in 2 sets of parents as occurs with blended families via second marriages.

You said that marriage law has never allowed homosexual acts.

1. It has allowed homosexual men and lesbian women to be married to opposite sex partners (across history).
2. I don’t think there ever been a national government marriage law that prohibited use of the partners hand on genital areas, oral sex and anal sex on the marriage bed – there have at times been laws against sodomy (including oral sex and anal sex) in the society in which marriage existed. But at those times there may have also been a tolerance for violence towards a spouse including rape and rules that limited spousal testimony.

Why? Can you please expand on that? My view of that mechanism differs. I believe personal responsibility is the path to ultimate nobility of the human condition. True personal responsibility is voluntary self-sacrifice to and for others borne out of love: hence voluntary.

Sure. Everything voluntary is deterministic, by logical necessity. You choose self-sacrifice because you are motivated by love. If you weren’t motivated by love, you would choose to act otherwise. You didn’t choose to be motivated by love. Therefore, things outside of your control (not your choice) determined your actions.

It’s a trademark of the FAGGOTS worldwide.

Arguments so powerful, they don’t need to be debated!

Just for you Denis:
http://pornotube.com/m/1666121/Hot-Gay-Docking

Griff (4,061)Jan26, 2013 at 6:31pm, Again the same old Homo=bum sex. Again the failure to see past their own blatant bigotry.

Homosexual activity includes buggery but NEVER includes coition. You can argue till the cows come home but all you end up doing is call opponents to your nonsense BIGOTS. It’s a trademark of FAGGOTS worldwide.

[DPF: If you can;t debate this issue without calling people faggots them you have a problem]

eszett (1,803) Says: January 26th, 2013 at 9:52 am They can object all they like, but soon their marriages will mean nothing anyway. Just a piece of paper not backed by reality, biology, history, culture, tradition, common sense … Might as well marry a horse, more likely to be between their legs, anyway. Adieu, Madame

Clearly, Dennis, your contradictory and confused argumentation is rather based on emotions and ignorance than any kind of rational thought or reason. Your overly focus on a sexual act rather betrays your true reasons behind your opposition to gay marriage.

Same tired old tripe. YES, marriage is about SEX. It might be all sorts of other things too but the so-called marriage for love is about SEX. You can argue all you like about it, but that’s why the word “marriage” should be restricted to men and women, who in the general case, copulate. Young men don’t get married for company. Young women may look at wealth or prospects. That be biology.

Friendship or any other personal relationships are of little concern to society, and that includes homosexual unions. They are what they are and calling them marriage won’t alter that one iota. You can demand all you like that society equates buggery with coition but it isn’t and never will be. It’s just wishful thinking and ignorance.

Yvette (2,281) Says: January 26th, 2013 at 9:46 am
Marry me and I’ll never look at another horse. – [Groucho] Julius Henry Marx Marx

It’s horses for courses, Madame, horses for courses, and I surrender to your charm. Gros bisous …

Why? Can you please expand on that? My view of that mechanism differs. I believe personal responsibility is the path to ultimate nobility of the human condition. True personal responsibility is voluntary self-sacrifice to and for others borne out of love: hence voluntary. This I believe is the natural human condition which every single one of us is capable of being no matter what happens to us. The extent to which each one of us does or doesn’t behave and think like this and we are all somewhere on that spectrum, is not caused I believe by external forces but rather by our own internal connection to the infinite soul of the universe.

It’s a shame to me that I understand many people on the left truly take the line that conservative advocacy of personal responsibility is borne out of selfishness. Some lefties seem to conflate for some reason competition with personal responsibility and they seem to conclude therefore it’s all about ruthless win-at-all-costs mentalities and of course the dear old kind hearted generous and loving common or garden lefty wants nothing to do with that. Which is a shame, for those who think like that, because it’s utterly, totally and completely wrong, in every single possible way.

That sense of personal responsibility doesn’t have to be grounded in fact (free will being the nonsense it is), but the sense of taking responsibility for your life and possibilities for your future can deterministically bring about what we might consider more sensible and appropriate actions – working hard, respecting others, even a feeling of obligation to help each other out.

A society that engenders that sense in its members would be in a way responsible as a society for producing members who are in a way responsible for themselves. Of course it’s societal factors that are the deterministic causes behind the criminal or unambitious behaviours of some of the society’s members. But interestingly, believing that criminal or unambitious behaviours are in fact the responsibility of the individual in question can compel or inspire that individual to act otherwise.

Personal responsibility is a kind of noble lie. It’s not grounded in fact, but it’s effective nonetheless.

1. You have a society where individuals are not held accountable.
2. Because the society doesn’t hold individuals accountable, the individuals become underachievers.
3. If the society held individuals accountable, it would produce achieving individuals.
4. Therefore, we can blame the society, rather than the individuals, for blaming society rather than the individuals.

Ryan, not at all. Just look at the society of achievers we had in the past when individuals were held accountable.
It gets people up off their asses in an attempt to better themselves.

Yes, that’s what I was saying, sorry. A society where individuals are held accountable will produce achievers. A society where individuals are not held accountable will produce underachievers. Does that sound about right?