So gay!!!

[Beantown]

Marriage is one part a gesture of love and one part a legal institution. It has nothing to do biology or procreation or religion. YOUR definition of marriage means nothing. Marriage isn't some abstract term open to interpretation.

It's hilarious to see you touting biology and evolution though. Funny how "science" is suddenly the argumental backbone of a movement that is based almost entirely within religious fundamentalism.

Marriage is a term asscoiated with offspring and families. Homosexuals cannot create offspring or genetic lineage and continue the process of evolution though heredity.

 

[YB85]

Marriage is a term asscoiated with offspring and families.

or anything else that fits my personal prejudice.

You forgot to add that.

 

[Beantown]

or anything else that fits my personal prejudice.

You forgot to add that.

So you are saying marriage, children and family are terms not associated with eachother?

 

[One Brow]

My point is homosexuals cannot have sexual intercourse through direct sexual organ contact.

You're wrong on this point, of course.

Isn't it proponents of gay marriage that should be proving that it won't? ... "Your just a stupid bigot!"

Should proponents of interracial marriage have needed to prove its worth? Proponents of voting women? What type of proof would be needed?

It's hilarious to see you touting biology and evolution though.

He doesn't. He touts an incorrect formulation of biology and science, designed to support his opinion.

 

[TroutBum]

In short: Bean is a moran.

 

[YB85]

So you are saying marriage, children and family are terms not associated with eachother?

Are they? Let me ask you this: Define "offspring", the term from the post that I quoted. Then define "family".

 

[Beantown]

In short: Bean is a moran.

Lets go Cougs!

 

[Beantown]

You're wrong on this point, of course.

Please explain how male and female homosexuals have sexual intercourse. Thanks.

 

[Beantown]

Are they? Let me ask you this: Define "offspring", the term from the post that I quoted. Then define "family".

Offsrping is a child produced by a male and a female.

Family is a combination of parents and children and can include extended relatives.

 

[prodigal punk]

Offsrping is a child produced by a male and a female.

Family is a combination of parents and children and can include extended relatives.

If I understand you correctly, I could infer, by your logic, that an adopted child does not fit the concept of offspring? Further, you submit that we, as humans are completely subject to the laws of nature and not completely different beings from most animals in that we are capable of recognizing these laws and, in some ways, existing outside or "above" them?

 

[KM32MVP]

Specific men and women health issues doesnt change the fact that only heterosexual relations were selected for the process of sexual intercourse and the ability to procreate.

That is correct, however, I fail to see where procreation was selected as a necessary requirement for marriage.

 

[Beantown]

If I understand you correctly, I could infer, by your logic, that an adopted child does not fit the concept of offspring? Further, you submit that we, as humans are completely subject to the laws of nature and not completely different beings from most animals in that we are capable of recognizing these laws and, in some ways, existing outside or "above" them?

Everyone is an offspring from a mother and a father. Being adopted doesnt change that.

 

[Beantown]

That is correct, however, I fail to see where procreation was selected as a necessary requirement for marriage.

I never said it was. But the heterosexual relation is the only relation in which there are biological and evolutionary components.

 

[KM32MVP]

I never said it was.

But the term marriage to me has biological meaning. I think we need to recognize that only heterosexual relations have the power to procreate and the more respect we have for that power as a socioty the better.

Seems to be your implication

 

[Beantown]

I never said it was. But the heterosexual relation is the only relation in which there are biological and evolutionary components.

 

[One Brow]

Please explain how male and female homosexuals have sexual intercourse. Thanks.

You stated, "My point is homosexuals cannot have sexual intercourse through direct sexual organ contact." This is obviously false, and I am not interested in expaining the obvious to you. If you can not visualize how two male homosexuals can have direct sexual organ contact, nor how two female homosexual can have direct direct sexual organ contact, I can only say you have severly limited visualization facilities.

 

[Gyp Rosetti]

Beanclown,

Do you believe people are actually gay or they're just doing it because it's trendy? In addition if you believe certain people actually are gay, do you think they were born that way?

 

[Scat]

Isn't it proponents of gay marriage that should be proving that it won't? ... "Your just a stupid bigot!"

Should proponents of interracial marriage have needed to prove its worth? Proponents of voting women? What type of proof would be needed?

Since I wasn't alive during the debate for women's sufferage or interracial marriage I have no idea what sort of debate took place at the time and what sort of argument was put forth by the vying ideologies. I'll decline to wade into this mess. Let's stick with the topic at hand.

Regarding what type of proof would be needed, I could ask you the same question. What type of proof would you need to change your mind on supporting gay marriage? I don't suspect there is much anybody could do or say to sway those that have already chosen a side.

 

[wangchung12]

The answer to this problem is the government needs to get out of the marriage business. Instead of issuing a marriage license the government issues a civil union "license" if you would to two consent adults. Then if said consenting adults want to get "married" they go to a church that will perform the ceremony. But in the governments eyes everyone would be in a civil union but the civil union would grant all the same protections under the law that the old marriage license system did. It seems pretty obvious it doesn't make anyone happy so it won't ever happen but it is the fairest way to do solve this. Making everyone feel "equal".

 

[One Brow]

Since I wasn't alive during the debate for women's sufferage or interracial marriage I have no idea what sort of debate took place at the time and what sort of argument was put forth by the vying ideologies. I'll decline to wade into this mess. Let's stick with the topic at hand.

Because, after all, you support women's voting and interracial marriage, so you're not interested in applying teh same standard to it.

Regarding what type of proof would be needed, I could ask you the same question. What type of proof would you need to change your mind on supporting gay marriage? I don't suspect there is much anybody could do or say to sway those that have already chosen a side.

One of these would convince me:
1) A rational argument not based on religious principles
2) Solid evidence that there had been a serious effect in the countires that have had homosexual marriages, or some equivalent, for over a decade
3) The government getting out of marriage entirely.

Since one side is proclaiming different treatment, that side needs to justify the difference.