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!
most of them alternate between the inside of their skull and their ass. the "ass folks" mostly live in las vegas.
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. 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.... 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.
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.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
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).
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. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
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 Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
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 \((M \cup M) \neq (M \cup W)\).
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 ?.......
