Spain 3rd country to legalize Homosexual Marriage

[mannyamador]

---

same $3x marriage is one way of slowing the growth of our population growth

All the more we don't need it.

[vern]

If we are to redefine marriage to accommodate homosexuals, then what about those with other sexual orientations like pedophiles, those into incest, polygamists, those into bestiality, etc.?

What if someone is in love with his dog, or own daughter, or own grandmother and three aunts?

Logically, we would have to accommodate these as well. The what will become of marriage? We'll have all sorts of "marriages" then!!!

Bad thing.

There is a name for your logic. It is called a logical fallacy ... a mistake in reasoning ... specifically ... Post hoc, ergo propter hoc. Since you have gotten off the wrong foot to argue your point, it is pointless for me to argue with your religious-based logic.

*EDIT* To everyone ... many of you are treading a fine line between funny, discussion ... and outright intolerance and hate. You'd be wise to read and re-read anything you post.

[felixjr]

laki vs lake = pinsing!
Bayi vs baye = dumpa!

Hahahaha! Gud luck ninyo!

:d:d:d:d:d:d:d

[peewee_toot]

let God be the judge nlng...

[gikapoy]

let God be the judge nlng...

kilatan gali ang couple with same ***.. meaning.. wala ma uyon c lord

[pinoyapache]

paeta daghan diay manoy diri, daghan man mo-untol sa criticism aning man-to-man marriage. didto sa United States of Decadent America uso na man ang baptism sa mga pets basin di madugay duna na sab nya pet-to-pet marriage. pagka-toy-toy jud sa modern kalibutan...

[mannyamador]

There is a name for your logic. It is called a logical fallacy ... a mistake in reasoning ... specifically ... Post hoc, ergo propter hoc.

I think you are mistaken. Post hoc ergo propter hoc is basically saying, "Since that event followed this one, that event must have been caused by this one." That is NOT present in my argument.

An example of the fallacy you incorrectly claim I am making is as follows:

From Attacking Faulty Reasoning by T. Edward Damer:

"I can't help but think that you are the cause of this problem; we never had any problem with the furnace until you moved into the apartment." The manager of the apartment house, on no stated grounds other than the temporal priority of the new tenant's occupancy, has assumed that the tenant's presence has some causal relationship to the furnace's becoming faulty.

I think my argument is more of the (correct) form reductio ad absurdum.

The argument I have given in previous posts is not, by the way, based on religion, but mainly on logic. It is quite independent of religion and is acceptable even to atheists.

[kamikaze_007]

"...marriage are made in heaven and the church gives a blessing..."

anyways, ako wa man koy igsuon, amahan, uyoan ug iro nga bayot so against ko ani same-sXX marriage! adto lang na ipahigayon sa maguindanao ug basilan para sadya malingaw pod ang mga way lingaw didto.

..hahahahaha..unsa mana nga reasoning bai?!..

..kay wala lage kay bayot na parente against ka sa homo marriage?..pero, kung naa kay parente na bayot di na ka against ana?..lolz..

[kamikaze_007]

kilatan gali ang couple with same ***.. meaning.. wala ma uyon c lord

..you think so?..do you really know well your GOD?..if you do..then, please contact him and let him come down and help Philippines..


..ngano i-link man gyud ni nga topic sa religion?..please post your religious insights on the spirituality and religion section..this has nothing to do with religion..the topic is about legalizing Same S3x marriage..church and state are separate entities..

[b0ty0k]

wait f0r God's wrath!