Sort fo like trying to teach Giricek to be a good baseketball player.
So gay!!!
- Thread starter TroutBum
- Start date
Sort fo like trying to teach Giricek to be a good baseketball player.
billyshelby
Well-Known Member
Right? I'd help you out with this but I don't want to steal your thunder. You've got it well handled.
So you agree with me. Gay marriage proponents need to justify the changes in society that they are requesting.
KM32MVP
Well-Known Member
What would you consider adequate justification?
As has been explained to you often, this is also flatly false. Your refusal to acknowledge it is false does not change that it is false.
At what point did I say "changes in society" need to be justified? I said treating people differently needs to be justified.
chemdude1232
Active Member
Cool. Glad to see you do actually dispense rights to people once in a while.
Beantown
Well-Known Member
I support giving gays rights and being able to adopt. I just believe we should still respect that heterosexual relations have important biological functions that homosexual relations do not. Saying the relations are equal or the same just weakens and disrespects the natural and biological importance of the heterosexual relationship.
So you admit that they are not "total oppposites."
And sexual contact can certainly occur through direct sexual organ contact.
Exhibit A: Princeton Rub.
Exhibits B: Scissoring.
Beantown
Well-Known Member
Those examples are not intercourse. Again those just try to mimic it, and quite badly I might add.
Also me having sexual intercourse with my wife compared to sticking my junk in another guys hairy poop shoot is as "opposite" as it gets.
Archie Moses
Well-Known Member
I didn't even need to Archie this thread, eh?
The Thriller
Well-Known Member
What would the national debt look like if it were adjusted to giving tax cuts and benefits to homosexuals living together as other married couples? I can only hear the screams and wailing's of AM radio if this were ever calculated...
Factual testimony was the bulk of the hearing and that's what can't be challenged. The factual portion of the trial is going to have to form the basis for any finding of a rational relationship. That's why the trial judge gets to frame the issues.
Example:
The trial judge made a FACTUAL finding, after reviewing expert testimony, that there is no disadvantage to children who are raised by homosexual couples instead of heterosexual couples.
That is the basis for the LEGAL conclusion that there is no rational relationship between banning homosexual marriage and a state interest in ensuring that heterosexual parenting is promoted over homosexual parenting.
If a reviewing court looks at the case they are stuck with the factual finding, and that makes concluding the other way on the legal finding substantially more difficult. That's why the trial court matters a lot in these proceedings.
chemdude1232
Active Member
Bean, as a curiosity, what's the underlying basis for your statement that the heterosexual union should be respected? I understand that biologically the two sexual acts (homosexual vs. heterosexual) are different (based merely on the fact that a heterosexual union produces children), but do you base your request for the sanctity of the heterosexual stuff on anything specific? That is, why should we be respecting heterosexuality's ability to produce youngins?
If we dispense rights based on biological differences, then we are thoroughly screwed as a society. That's not a mutilation of science (as I'm sure you'd love to claim) but merely an observation based on your prior statements.
If we dispense rights based on biological differences, then we are thoroughly screwed as a society. That's not a mutilation of science (as I'm sure you'd love to claim) but merely an observation based on your prior statements.
How do you know that a princeton rub is a bad mimic? Have you tried it?
Maybe we should ask an expert. Is honz still reading this thread?
Why does it have to be hairy? Is that your thing?
Please review the checklist.
Now tell me the following: Which of these is farther away from homosexual intercourse: Changing my oil or homosexual intercourse?
I'm pretty sure changing my oil has fewer things in common. There's not even any genitals involved; unless you badly misinterpret the instructions involving the dipstick.
Jesus Christ, you wouldn't even give a courtesy reach around?
I like how you include "gay" in "anal sex" because married heterosexual people wouldn't ever go for a little raspberry delight, now would they? They'd just be mimicking homosexuals, and it wouldn't count as intercourse.
Last edited:
it is really pissing me off that the limitations of this system are preventing me from giving rep points where rep points are due.
did you miss it entirely, Bean?
thanks Billy!
did you miss it entirely, Bean?
thanks Billy!
