I was tempted to put this in the Physics & Math forum, but I decided against it.

Let m stand for a man and w stand for a woman.

Because it's one man, m=1.

Let m+w=M, where M is marriage.

If men are equal to women, m=w, then the following two equations are true:

m+m=M
w+w=M

There you go. Pure logic. Can't argue with pure logic.

Discuss.

But men aren't equal to women .that's pure logic too.

This is very silly.

The Genji is confused

Are you a gay activist wulf?

I was tempted to put this in the Physics & Math forum, but I decided against it.

Let m stand for a man and w stand for a woman.

Because it's one man, m=1.

Let m+w=M, where M is marriage.

If men are equal to women, m=w, then the following two equations are true:

m+m=M
w+w=M

There you go. Pure logic. Can't argue with pure logic.

Discuss.

Your logic is flawed. First off... you failed to define what it means for men and women to be equal. Two, you fail to explain how man = 1. Three, you failed to define addition. Four, what about polygamy? Your "logic" makes polygamy better than just regular marriage.

I think wulf's logic is slightly "off centre" .

And im glad it wasn't in the math forum , 'cause you would have got quite a bit more .....shall we say .... "questionable" responses.

I've heard the sexism is linked to being opposed to same-sex marriage... the logic there being that people who think of one gender as inferior to the other are therefore used to one member of a marriage being inferior to the other, so it seems weird and alien to them for both members of a marriage to be of the same gender and therefore equal. Whereas, if you're used to the members of a marriage being equal because the genders are equal, it doesn't seem like a big deal for both members of a marriage to be of the same gender.

But men aren't equal to women .that's pure logic too.

One man and one woman are legally equal. Each counts as one in the census. Each can vote, and that vote counts as one whether it's cast by a man or a woman. Each can hold jobs. Each can run for public office. Each can legally do anything the other can (of course this excludes fundamental biological functions like ovulating or making sperm, but they're inconsequential). Neither is a fraction of a person nor more than one person.

Besides, don't you value people's individual merits? Or do you only see penes and vaginae?

And you misplaced your periods.

This is very silly.

Logic and math are silly? Is that anti-intellectualism talking?

The Genji is confused

Where did I lose you? :(

Are you a gay activist wulf?

Depends on what you mean by that. Do you mean am I an activist that is gay, or an activist for the equal treatment of gays in the eyes of the law? And for that matter, what do you consider an activist?

First off... you failed to define what it means for men and women to be equal.

Men and women are legally equal. Each can vote, and that vote counts as one whether it's cast by a man or a woman. Each can hold jobs. Each can do anything the other can (excluding fundamental biological functions, but they're inconsequential).

Two, you fail to explain how man = 1.

Because it represents a man. Not two.

Three, you failed to define addition.

I've never had to define addition on my math homework. Because it's predefined. :confused:

It's a man and a woman. "And" is addition.

Four, what about polygamy? Your "logic" makes polygamy better than just regular marriage.

What if it is? :p

I'm not necessarily saying it is. But I'm not ready to say it isn't either.

I've heard the sexism is linked to being opposed to same-sex marriage... the logic there being that people who think of one gender as inferior to the other are therefore used to one member of a marriage being inferior to the other, so it seems weird and alien to them for both members of a marriage to be of the same gender and therefore equal. Whereas, if you're used to the members of a marriage being equal because the genders are equal, it doesn't seem like a big deal for both members of a marriage to be of the same gender.

Yup, pretty much. To sexists, either m>w, or, much less commonly, w>m. Presupposing the former since it's had a more real impact on Western society and thus is more relevant, if m+w=M, then m+m>M, and w+w<M. It just doesn't work.

But of course, neither sex is greater than the other.

I was tempted to put this in the Physics & Math forum, but I decided against it.

Let m stand for a man and w stand for a woman.

Because it's one man, m=1.

Let m+w=M, where M is marriage.

If men are equal to women, m=w, then the following two equations are true:

m+m=M
w+w=M

There you go. Pure logic. Can't argue with pure logic.

Discuss.
okay. no problem.
so M equals 2, what's next?

Each can vote, and that vote counts as one whether it's cast by a man or a woman.

Not a felon.
Nor illegal immigrants.
So, only voting adults can logically engage in gay marriage?

What if they're not registered to vote?

okay. no problem.
so M equals 2, what's next?

What do you mean, what's next?

Not a felon.
Nor illegal immigrants.
So, only voting adults can logically engage in gay marriage?

What if they're not registered to vote?

I just presented that as one reason I claim men and women are equal. Not being able to vote doesn't disqualify you as a person. Perhaps a man who can vote and a woman who can't don't have completely equal legal standing in their own particular respective rights, but the point is that suffrage applies to men and women equally.

I can add that felons and illegal immigrants lost their right to vote regardless of their sex. So it's not an issue of the person's sex. Suffrage is still applying equally to both sexes. So I think the points are moot.

But thanks for pointing this out. Now in the future I can say it differently: that the laws of suffrage disregard sex.

Also, it's interesting that you mention voter registration. I've seen mention of an idea to cut down on the bureaucracy of the voting process by tying voting to your social security account. Your SS account is already used for many things, including identification. If your SS account was tied to your vote too, then it could automatically indicate that you're of voting age once you turn eighteen, thereby making registration unnecessary. There are further details. I'll say them in another thread sometime so I don't derail this one. I gotta find the link to where I read it anyway.

Can't argue with pure logic.

Indeed, you can't. There was no logic - pure or otherwise - whatever displayed in your arguement.
:D :D :D
Have a nice day.

Indeed, you can't. There was no logic - pure or otherwise - whatever displayed in your arguement.

I appreciate constructive comments; I do not appreciate unhelpful comments. Please give me details. Please tell me how there is no logic. Tell me how stating a mathematical truism isn't logical.

What do you mean, what's next?

i don't know.
you mentioned the fact that 1+1=2 like there some big mystery to be revealed later.

i believe you would have stirred up more if you somehow "proved" that water doesn't flow downhill.

I like your argument, Athelwulf --it's mighty clever.

Regarding polygamy, a higher number (i.e m+w+w=M+1) doesn't seem to necessarily suggest "better." A higher number could just as easily be "worse" if achieving M is the ideal.

Heh, you can't argue with logic

Heh, you can't argue with logic
let's give it a try anyway
1) I fit inside my pants
2) My pants fits inside a suitcase

3) I can fit inside my suitcase?

let's give it a try anyway
1) I fit inside my pants
2) My pants fits inside a suitcase

3) I can fit inside my suitcase?

Yes. We can always cut you up in pieces.

We can always cut you up in pieces.
yeah I like that sort of logic

what do you think of this one?

1. The Japanese eat very little fat and suffer fewer heart attacks than the British or Americans.

2. The Mexicans eat a lot of fat and suffer fewer heart attacks than the British or Americans.

3. The Japanese drink very little red wine and suffer fewer heart attacks than the British or Americans.

4. The Italians drink excessive amounts of red wine and suffer fewer heart attacks than the British or Americans.

5. The Germans drink a lot of beer and eat lots of sausages and fat and suffer fewer heart attacks than the British or Americans.

So what do you conclude? Eat and drink what you like. Speaking English is apparently what kills you!

Not being able to vote doesn't disqualify you as a person.
yes it does.

yes it does.

How so?

yeah I like that sort of logic

what do you think of this one?

1. The Japanese eat very little fat and suffer fewer heart attacks than the British or Americans.

2. The Mexicans eat a lot of fat and suffer fewer heart attacks than the British or Americans.

3. The Japanese drink very little red wine and suffer fewer heart attacks than the British or Americans.

4. The Italians drink excessive amounts of red wine and suffer fewer heart attacks than the British or Americans.

5. The Germans drink a lot of beer and eat lots of sausages and fat and suffer fewer heart attacks than the British or Americans.

So what do you conclude? Eat and drink what you like. Speaking English is apparently what kills you!

The Americans have the greatest fat and alcohol in the world.

Where do they store it?

Americans are the greatest people in the world. Plenty of space to store it.

How so?

isnt it obvious?

Where do they store it?

most of them alternate between the inside of their skull and their ass.

the "ass folks" mostly live in las vegas.

Men and women are legally equal. Each can vote, and that vote counts as one whether it's cast by a man or a woman. Each can hold jobs. Each can do anything the other can (excluding fundamental biological functions, but they're inconsequential).

Sure you can define it in terms of law if you want.. but you left out culture. Culture is what actually defines marriage, the law just recognizes it.

Because it represents a man. Not two.

No, I am not talking about why a man is a single man... but why one? If you take higher level mathematics you learn to accept that there are mathemaical systems devoid of numbers. So why can't a man just be a man/ Why can't he equal everything that makes up a man? Muscles, testosterone, a penis, personality differences, cultural ideals, etc....



I've never had to define addition on my math homework. Because it's predefined. :confused:

It's a man and a woman. "And" is addition.

Addition always needs to be defined when it is not clear. Because you arbitrarily defined man as 1 (which make no sense as I stated above), your addition only makes sense in that system. But because you can't just assign them a number without meaning, you need a new system and you'll need to define the addition of that system.

I appreciate constructive comments; I do not appreciate unhelpful comments. Please give me details. Please tell me how there is no logic. Tell me how stating a mathematical truism isn't logical.

Well, for my part, the analogy of marriage to a mathematical constant doesn't work, because it is a perceived state rather than a numerical value - or it's like.
Indeed, even the descriptions "man" and "woman" seem sufficiently vague - by virtue of the differening ages of consent which are held to be that point in a person's life at which they can decide for themselves whether or not to enter into the "state of matrimony" - that their description as absolutes would seem to defy rather than adhere to logic.

Of course, one can obtain a document which "proves" that one is married, but this strikes me as more in the way of a permit than a thesis. The sanction of a clergyman would seem to me also to be a definition of at least subjective nature.

IMHO, the rationale which applies chiefly to the situation is - and admittedly it seems equally subjective - is simple common sense.

One must ask whether or not - as one arguement against sanctioning same-sex marriage seems to state - that it somehow diminishes the "sanctity" of marriage, or it's significance to society - legal or otherwise.

Good luck getting a consensus there.

10 Reasons Why Gay Marriage is Wrong

1. Homosexuality is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.

2. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

3. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

4. Heterosexual marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

5. Straight marriage will be less meaningful if homosexual marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Brittany Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.

6. Heterosexual marriages are valid because they produce children. Homosexual couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.

7. Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

8. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.

9. Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.

10. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.

From an email.:D

I thought:

m + w = M
w + w = Mmmmm
m + m = Y?

Also, m and w do not equal 1. They can equal each other, but numbers in these equations are reserved for length of time (t) in years. The original post does not make the case that m = 1 = w, it just seems to throw the '1' in there in order to have a number in the post, as if that lends the idea credence. Let's look at some real marriage math:

This is the formula for Wedding Day: (m + w) + 0 = $
Where $ stands for the 'F' of 'w'

This is the formula for Anniversary: y*(m + w) = ?
Where the uncertainty for men, '?', is directly proportional to the number of years, 'y'.

The variable 'x' is never used in Marriage Mathematics because it has a special use in the formula: M^y = x
Where 'x' stands for 'Ex'

As you can see by: My^-1 = s/day
Where 's' stands for sex, as the years increase, the sex decreases rapidly from the initial 'once per day'. You can also see by this formula that sex DURING the marriage ceremony is forbidden, as that results in a divide-by-zero. And you can also determine that most couples have sex twice on their wedding night.

The scariest Marriage Mathematics regards offspring, where:
M + s = K.I.D.S. Which is just one variable different from the only slightly worse outcome (m + w) + s = A.I.D.S. Which is related to [(m + m) + as)]^-32 = A.I.D.S. Taking the 32nd power of both sides of this equation shows a far greater likelihood of contraction. Of course, as != s, which drives that equation far more powerfully than the (m + m).

10 Reasons Why Gay Marriage is Wrong
Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.


Oy !

That ain't true !

We eat plenty of gene-engineered food...
mmm !!!

it's the rest of youse for'in slobs what don't accept scientifical advancements.
;)

I have nothing against gay marriage but I disagree with your logic. If males and females are entirely equal, why the need for separate toilets?

Also, I can't plug a female socket into another female socket for hot USB action. The evil Computing-Industrial Complex is obviously repressing freedom of sexuality :(

Also, he said that a man is 1, same for woman. So he claims m = w = 1. This is false. What IS true that is if you have a set M for men and W for women... and put one of each in both, then we can see that |M| = |W| but (M \cup M) \neq (M \cup W).

Mum equals what? This is a stupid thread.

cesspool!

Mum equals what? This is a stupid thread.

Mum? no. Those are two sets joined together by a union. It's set theory.

This thread fails.

Only the men seem to understand this thread.

One man and one woman are legally equal. Each counts as one in the census. Each can vote, and that vote counts as one whether it's cast by a man or a woman. Each can hold jobs. Each can run for public office. Each can legally do anything the other can (of course this excludes fundamental biological functions like ovulating or making sperm, but they're inconsequential). Neither is a fraction of a person nor more than one person.

Besides, don't you value people's individual merits? Or do you only see penes and vaginae?

And you misplaced your periods.

Depends on what you mean by that. Do you mean am I an activist that is gay, or an activist for the equal treatment of gays in the eyes of the law? And for that matter, what do you consider an activist?

But of course, neither sex is greater than the other.


Wulf, legally equal is fine, i'm talking about biologically and logically/efficiently equal, which is what I think your post was based on, not "legally" .

I value lote of merits , but women are not equal to men, in any way outside of legally. Some stuff they are better at, some worse. But not equal. Nothing to do with sexuality.
---
An activist is one that supports the "issue" by going out to make a point about it , wether they are one of those or just believe in those is irelevant.
---
Technically true as far as neither sex being "greater" than the other. To make things work "oposite" sexes have to work together.
---
What's this about my periods ?.......

What's this about my periods ?.......

Well, according to the original poster, since m = 1 = w, you should be having them every 28 days.

Well, according to the original poster, since m = 1 = w, you should be having them every 28 days.

... give or take.

But no, I think the point is that they're equal, not identical. You know, kind of how 7+3 and 5x2 both equal 10.

... give or take.

But no, I think the point is that they're equal, not identical. You know, kind of how 7+3 and 5x2 both equal 10.

Hmmm. But I was joking.

Hmmm. But I was joking.

Can one not refute a joke?

Can one not refute a joke?

Only by not laughing.

Only by not laughing.

Would be much of a refute, not laughing when you don't even know I read it...

But fair enough. I retract my statement on the grounds of your statement having been one not subject to the ordinary laws of forum refutation.

I have nothing against gay marriage but I disagree with your logic. If males and females are entirely equal, why the need for separate toilets?

That makes the assumption that there's a need for separate toilets. Most public bathrooms are in fact separated by gender, but that doesn't mean there's a need. Likewise there's no reason to believe that because guys don't want to pee in front of women and women don't want to go in a dirty men's room they are not equal... they just have different bathroom habits.

Women are from Venus and men are from Uranus.

Women are from Venus and men are from Uranus.
wrong.
they are from URanus.

Would be much of a refute, not laughing when you don't even know I read it...

But fair enough. I retract my statement on the grounds of your statement having been one not subject to the ordinary laws of forum refutation.

I am still joking. :D I'm not trying to rag on you, just enjoying the banter of a silly thread.

I thought "By not laughing at it" was a funny response. Sorry that my sarcasm wasn't more explicit.

-Peace.

I am still joking. :D I'm not trying to rag on you, just enjoying the banter of a silly thread.

I thought "By not laughing at it" was a funny response. Sorry that my sarcasm wasn't more explicit.

-Peace.

No worries. It's been fun.