Quote:
Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa
Actually you don't.
|
Actually, I do. You're saying that since there is no such thing as gay marriage in God's eyes, there is no such thing as women's pants in God's eyes. The logic is good. And I do get it.
My difference is more philosophical. Kind of like when Rev. Bernard argued that we cannot say that Christ was 100% man and 100% God. He argued that God is infinitely limitless. Therefore, God cannot be defined in totality. Thus the phrase "100% God" is impossible. One must say that Jesus is 100% man and "absolutely God".
I'll try to explain the ontological category fallacy I see with regards to comparing women's pants and gay marriage...
However, the only problem I see is that your creating a category fallacy in your comparison. You see, "marriage" is an immaterial concept that has been institutionalized. For example, the notion of the "satanic church". There's no such animal either. A "church" by its very definition cannot be "satanic". For if it were, it would not be a "church". Likewise, a "marriage" by definition cannot include two gay people. If it does, it isn't a "marriage". Both concepts do not exist.
But pants are not a concept. They are a tangible material reality. We just changed ontological categories. We moved from concept to a material thing. I'll explain... You can pick up a pair of pink, form fitting, ladies jeans, complete with sparkly sequins across the bottom. They are material. If we pick up a pair of women's pants and say that there is no such thing as women's pants, then what do we have in our hands? Pants. The jeans still exist. And so we cannot deny their existence. They are indeed a very real pair of pants. And if we say that women's pants do not exist because pants pertain to a man, then guess who we just allocated rightful use to? Men.
Thus, logically speaking, if there is no such thing as women's pants... and pants belong to men... then women's pants belong to men just as much as any pair of pants would.
One would have to demonstrate that they are not "pants" at all to avoid allocating them to males. But if we do that... then we lose all reason to deny that they belong to women.
So, women's pants are indeed women's pants. And no, it isn't appropriate for men to wear them. Why? They are women's pants. Now the logic is seamless (no pun intended). lol
It's a small, but nuanced, disagreement with your logic.
Quote:
Beautiful.
I wouldn't expect anything else. 
|
One day we'll see in glory how we sharpened one another, my brother.
Quote:
|
So, men can marry men? Because in our day and age they have designed weddings to accept same genders.
|
Marriage is a concept. Gay marriage is an impossible concept. Pants (regardless of design) are a material reality. Different ontological categories.
Quote:
Because modern secular society has feminized something masculine. You couldn't wear them even if you wanted to, because the rear end would split down the middle. 
|
LOL!
Hybrid Mode
