I support discriminating against homosexualsex

[conjur]

Originally posted by: shrumpage

Originally posted by: conjur

Are you going to address any of the points i raised?

What the hell are you talking about? What points? You made no point. You replied to a post of mine and I replied in kind.

This:

Gay people are not being denied any rights that are afforded to everyone else, they are asking for the defination of marriage to be expanded to include same sex couples.

Men and women are different, a difference that is reconized by society, by courts and by the law. These differences define what type of relationships we are capable of having. A relationship between a man and a woman can produce kids, where is a relationship between man & man can not. The two realtionships are fundementally different and don't have the same impact on society, because of this marriage has been exclusivly defined between a man & a woman.

You had it quoted in an earlier post that orginally spawned this current discussion.

So, you ask me several posts later?

Ok, I'll bite:

Men and women are different, a difference that is reconized [sic] by society, by courts and by the law. These differences define what type of relationships we are capable of having

Society <> law

Show me the laws that mandate man/woman relationships. What you're saying is that homosexuality is illegal. It is not.

A relationship between a man and a woman can produce kids, where is [sic] a relationship between man & man can not [sic].

Same-sex marriages can also produce children, albeit, not directly. They can also adopt children that are wishing and hoping each day to be adopted. Even the American Association of Pediatrics supports same-sex marriage and adoption by same-sex couples.

The two realtionships [sic] are fundementally [sic] different and don't have the same impact on society. Because of this, marriage has been exclusivly [sic] defined between a man & a woman

What impacts would you wish to foist upon same-sex marriages? Love? Covered. Commitment? Covered. Pro-creation? Covered, via adoption and/or surrogate mother or other options.

 

[shrumpage]

Originally posted by: BeefJurky

Originally posted by: shrumpage

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: shrumpage

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: shrumpage

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: shrumpage

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
BIGOT BIGOT BIGOT.......................

Why can't we discuss the real issues behind this?

CkG

Hehehe THE ISSUES!...

Now that makes sense. The issue is Equal Rights, it seems to me. The famous Fourteenth Amendment and all that. Why is it that 'Unification' and the rights associated with that condition should or should not be dependent on who the individuals are that seek this 'unification'? Why is being 'Gay' assumed to be illegal... and if it is not then why do the rights of 'unification' not pertain? How is it a class of people who fall under the various protections... "... without regard to race, nationality or sexual orientation ... " become less viable for the rights of other protections? Seems quite a segregation issue to me.. One in which an opponent may easily be classified as somewhat bigoted against that class of people.. Seems to me..

Gay people are not being denied any rights that are afforded to everyone else, they are asking for the defination of marriage to be expanded to include same sex couples.

Men and women are different, a difference that is reconized by society, by courts and by the law. These differences define what type of relationships we are capable of having. A relationship between a man and a woman can produce kids, where is a relationship between man & man can not. The two realtionships are fundementally different and don't have the same impact on society, because of this marriage has been exclusivly defined between a man & a woman.

Show us where the U.S. Constitution defines marriage as between a man and a woman.

Marriage, like a whole lot of things are not defined in the U.S. Constitution: man, woman, mile, quart, but we still have definations of these with in our society.

We also used to have laws banning interracial marriage. That was found to be unconstitutional and so will banning same-sex marriages.

doubtful -

When bans on interracial marriage were lifted - it didn't change the nature of marriage itself - it was still between a man and a woman.

But it did change the nature of it, just not that part. Many people thought the idea was as disgusting as this one, others just felt uncomfortable with it.

no it didn't.

Through out history there has been realitvely short-lived no-no's on inter-racial, inter-cutlure, inter-religion, inter-ethinic, inter-tribal mixing - but the constant that has ALWAYS been: is marriage is man and woman.

and the constant 50 years ago had ALWAYS been: marriage is a white man and white woman or black man and black woman.

personally, i like the progress we've been making.

Well i'm glad you aren't against inter-racial marriages, but your statment about it being a" constant" is false - not every state had laws against inter-racial marriage. But being between a man and a woman was.

 

[BeefJurky]

Originally posted by: shrumpage

Originally posted by: conjur

Are you going to address any of the points i raised?

What the hell are you talking about? What points? You made no point. You replied to a post of mine and I replied in kind.

This:

Gay people are not being denied any rights that are afforded to everyone else, they are asking for the defination of marriage to be expanded to include same sex couples.

Men and women are different, a difference that is reconized by society, by courts and by the law. These differences define what type of relationships we are capable of having. A relationship between a man and a woman can produce kids, where is a relationship between man & man can not. The two realtionships are fundementally different and don't have the same impact on society, because of this marriage has been exclusivly defined between a man & a woman.

You had it quoted in an earlier post that orginally spawned this current discussion.

let's look at this sentence for a bit:

Gay people are not being denied any rights that are afforded to everyone else, they are asking for the defination of marriage to be expanded to include same sex couples.

... ok now let's look at it again.

Gay people are not being denied any rights that are afforded to everyone else, they are asking for the defination of marriage to be expanded to include same sex couples.

so.... at the same time that they are not allowed to be married and asking to be allowed, by law, to marry, they're not asking for anything that anyone else can do? prease to be explain.

it sounds to me like, excuse the terrible analogy, your point of view of the situation here, as well as your only argument is as follows:

you like to call yourself the "King of Pants" and recently learned that some guys down the street that you don't like started calling themselves "the Kings of Pants" so now you want to make it against the law for anyone but you to call themselves "King(s) of Pants"

correct me if i'm wrong.

edit: sorry for the italics... how did that happen? there are no tags here in the post

 

[HardWarrior]

Originally posted by: shrumpage

Through out history there has been realitvely short-lived no-no's on inter-racial, inter-cutlure, inter-religion, inter-ethinic, inter-tribal mixing - but the constant that has ALWAYS been: is marriage is man and woman.

Well that's about to change as well. BTW, be careful about those things you quote to prove your point. Some of those "no-no's" you mention above were around for a LONG time. Furthermore, when all were of them were put aside, there was no direct harm to those who INSISTED that they remain intact. You guys just don't have a leg to stand on, other than that you want to assume responsibility for people who don't, and shouldn't, care what you think or want.

 

[shrumpage]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: shrumpage

Originally posted by: conjur

Are you going to address any of the points i raised?

What the hell are you talking about? What points? You made no point. You replied to a post of mine and I replied in kind.

This:

Gay people are not being denied any rights that are afforded to everyone else, they are asking for the defination of marriage to be expanded to include same sex couples.

Men and women are different, a difference that is reconized by society, by courts and by the law. These differences define what type of relationships we are capable of having. A relationship between a man and a woman can produce kids, where is a relationship between man & man can not. The two realtionships are fundementally different and don't have the same impact on society, because of this marriage has been exclusivly defined between a man & a woman.

You had it quoted in an earlier post that orginally spawned this current discussion.

So, you ask me several posts later?

Ok, I'll bite:

Men and women are different, a difference that is reconized [sic] by society, by courts and by the law. These differences define what type of relationships we are capable of having

Society <> law

Show me the laws that mandate man/woman relationships. What you're saying is that homosexuality is illegal. It is not.

I never said homosexuality is illegal or should be illegal.

I used the word "capable" for a reason - a man and a woman are 'capable' of having a relationship that produces childern. Bill and Ted are not capable of that type of realtionship.

A relationship between a man and a woman can produce kids, where is [sic] a relationship between man & man can not [sic].

Same-sex marriages can also produce children, albeit, not directly. They can also adopt children that are wishing and hoping each day to be adopted. Even the American Association of Pediatrics supports same-sex marriage and adoption by same-sex couples.[/quote]

How can Bill and Ted "produce" childeren? Thelma and Louis can not themselves produce childeren, either. To have a child in the situation a third party needs to be brought in. A third party, outside of the relationship, that would be able to produce a child with only ONE of them. The child would not be a product of their relationship.

Adoption in itself is not a production of the relationship and would happen with or with out.

The two realtionships [sic] are fundementally [sic] different and don't have the same impact on society. Because of this, marriage has been exclusivly [sic] defined between a man & a woman

What impacts would you wish to foist upon same-sex marriages? Love? Covered. Commitment? Covered. Pro-creation? Covered, via adoption and/or surrogate mother or other options.[/quote]

Childeren. The offspring live well beyond the orginal couple and continue to have an impact on society. With out them, a society can not continue to exsist beyond a generation. Offspring is the one that that same sex couples can not have.

 

[shrumpage]

Originally posted by: BeefJurky

Originally posted by: shrumpage

Originally posted by: conjur

Are you going to address any of the points i raised?

What the hell are you talking about? What points? You made no point. You replied to a post of mine and I replied in kind.

This:

Gay people are not being denied any rights that are afforded to everyone else, they are asking for the defination of marriage to be expanded to include same sex couples.

Men and women are different, a difference that is reconized by society, by courts and by the law. These differences define what type of relationships we are capable of having. A relationship between a man and a woman can produce kids, where is a relationship between man & man can not. The two realtionships are fundementally different and don't have the same impact on society, because of this marriage has been exclusivly defined between a man & a woman.

You had it quoted in an earlier post that orginally spawned this current discussion.

let's look at this sentence for a bit:

Gay people are not being denied any rights that are afforded to everyone else, they are asking for the defination of marriage to be expanded to include same sex couples.

... ok now let's look at it again.

Gay people are not being denied any rights that are afforded to everyone else, they are asking for the defination of marriage to be expanded to include same sex couples.

so.... at the same time that they are not allowed to be married and asking to be allowed, by law, to marry, they're not asking for anything that anyone else can do? prease to be explain.

bill can marry jane
bill can't marry ted

shrumpage can marry jane
shrumpage can't marry ted.

btw shrumpage is a male

gays can marry the same people EVERYONE ELSE CAN.

it sounds to me like, excuse the terrible analogy, your point of view of the situation here, as well as your only argument is as follows:

you like to call yourself the "King of Pants" and recently learned that some guys down the street that you don't like started calling themselves "the Kings of Pants" so now you want to make it against the law for anyone but you to call themselves "King(s) of Pants"

correct me if i'm wrong.

edit: sorry for the italics... how did that happen? there are no tags here in the post

correction time: its more like the entire world for thousands of years reconizing that there is a "king of pants" and he is shrumpage. Just because the guy down the starts to demand to be called "king of pants," doesn't make him so.

Or even better calling an orange an apple, doesn't make it an apple.

 

[HardWarrior]

Originally posted by: shrumpage Childeren. The offspring live well beyond the orginal couple and continue to have an impact on society. With out them, a society can not continue to exsist beyond a generation. Offspring is the one that that same sex couples can not have.

Sorry, this reason doesn't fly either. My wife and I don't have kids. If one were to follow your logic, we would be FORCED to have kids or divorce. The US is in no more danger than any other industrialized nation of losing population, and gay marriage won't change that.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: shrumpage

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: shrumpage

Originally posted by: conjur

Are you going to address any of the points i raised?

What the hell are you talking about? What points? You made no point. You replied to a post of mine and I replied in kind.

This:

Gay people are not being denied any rights that are afforded to everyone else, they are asking for the defination of marriage to be expanded to include same sex couples.

Men and women are different, a difference that is reconized by society, by courts and by the law. These differences define what type of relationships we are capable of having. A relationship between a man and a woman can produce kids, where is a relationship between man & man can not. The two realtionships are fundementally different and don't have the same impact on society, because of this marriage has been exclusivly defined between a man & a woman.

You had it quoted in an earlier post that orginally spawned this current discussion.

So, you ask me several posts later?

Ok, I'll bite:

Men and women are different, a difference that is reconized [sic] by society, by courts and by the law. These differences define what type of relationships we are capable of having

Society <> law

Show me the laws that mandate man/woman relationships. What you're saying is that homosexuality is illegal. It is not.

I never said homosexuality is illegal or should be illegal.

I used the word "capable" for a reason - a man and a woman are 'capable' of having a relationship that produces childern. Bill and Ted are not capable of that type of realtionship.

A relationship between a man and a woman can produce kids, where is [sic] a relationship between man & man can not [sic].

Same-sex marriages can also produce children, albeit, not directly. They can also adopt children that are wishing and hoping each day to be adopted. Even the American Association of Pediatrics supports same-sex marriage and adoption by same-sex couples.

How can Bill and Ted "produce" childeren? Thelma and Louis can not themselves produce childeren, either. To have a child in the situation a third party needs to be brought in. A third party, outside of the relationship, that would be able to produce a child with only ONE of them. The child would not be a product of their relationship.

Adoption in itself is not a production of the relationship and would happen with or with out.

The two realtionships [sic] are fundementally [sic] different and don't have the same impact on society. Because of this, marriage has been exclusivly [sic] defined between a man & a woman

What impacts would you wish to foist upon same-sex marriages? Love? Covered. Commitment? Covered. Pro-creation? Covered, via adoption and/or surrogate mother or other options.[/quote]

Childeren. The offspring live well beyond the orginal couple and continue to have an impact on society. With out them, a society can not continue to exsist beyond a generation. Offspring is the one that that same sex couples can not have.[/quote]

Is being "capable" the only criteria?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: shrumpage

I never said homosexuality is illegal or should be illegal.

I used the word "capable" for a reason - a man and a woman are 'capable' of having a relationship that produces childern. Bill and Ted are not capable of that type of realtionship [sic].

"Bill and Ted" don't need to answer to you.

Same-sex marriages can also produce children, albeit, not directly. They can also adopt children that are wishing and hoping each day to be adopted. Even the American Association of Pediatrics supports same-sex marriage and adoption by same-sex couples.

How can Bill and Ted "produce" childeren [sic]? Thelma and Louis can not themselves produce childeren, either. To have a child in the situation a third party needs to be brought in. A third party, outside of the relationship, that would be able to produce a child with only ONE of them. The child would not be a product of their relationship.

It most certainly would be a product of their relationship. It's not a symbiotic relationship. Relationships are complex things involving love, trust, commitment and physical attraction.

Adoption in itself is not a production of the relationship and would happen with or with out.

With or without what? There are many who want to deny a same-sex couple the right to adopt.

What impacts would you wish to foist upon same-sex marriages? Love? Covered. Commitment? Covered. Pro-creation? Covered, via adoption and/or surrogate mother or other options.

Childeren [sic]. The offspring live well beyond the orginal [sic] couple and continue to have an impact on society. With out [sic] them, a society can not [sic] continue to exsist beyond a generation. Offspring is the one that [sic] that same sex couples can not [sic] have.

I've already refuted your claims. Surrogate mothers, adoption, etc. can be used to produce children. What about man/woman relationships where both parties are infertile/sterile? What about marriages of senior citizens past the age of bearing or producing children? Guess those should be banned, too, eh?

Besides, your apparent claim that the human race will die out should same-sex marriage be allowed is preposterous. Gays make up about 3.5-4% of the population. I think the human race is safe for quite some time.

 

[shrumpage]

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

Originally posted by: shrumpage

Through out history there has been realitvely short-lived no-no's on inter-racial, inter-cutlure, inter-religion, inter-ethinic, inter-tribal mixing - but the constant that has ALWAYS been: is marriage is man and woman.

Well that's about to change as well. BTW, be careful about those things you quote to prove your point. Some of those "no-no's" you mention above were around for a LONG time. Furthermore, when all were of them were put aside, there was no direct harm to those who INSISTED that they remain intact. You guys just don't have a leg to stand on, other than that you want to assume responsibility for people who don't, and shouldn't, care what you think or want.

A couple hundred years is not a long time when were talking about civilization. Expand it too a thousand, still fairly small. Even then we are only talking about an individual culture, not the entire world.

"Don't have a leg to stand on?" Has the world as a whole and for, oh, the last 5000 years kept marriage between a man and a woman? BTW i'm not in the minorty on this issue. 38 states have passed 'defensive of marriage' acts. Even a liberal state such as Califorina passed a voter reforendium defining marriage as between "one man and one woman."

 

[shrumpage]

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

Originally posted by: shrumpage Childeren. The offspring live well beyond the orginal couple and continue to have an impact on society. With out them, a society can not continue to exsist beyond a generation. Offspring is the one that that same sex couples can not have.

Sorry, this reason doesn't fly either. My wife and I don't have kids. If one were to follow your logic, we would be FORCED to have kids or divorce. The US is in no more danger than any other industrialized nation of losing population, and gay marriage won't change that.

what doesn't fly?

How does following my logic draw you to that?
Kids are REQUIRED to for a society to continue beyond a generation. I was using the ability to have kids a the fundetmental difference between same sex couple and man/woman couple.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: shrumpage

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

Originally posted by: shrumpage

Through out history there has been realitvely short-lived no-no's on inter-racial, inter-cutlure, inter-religion, inter-ethinic, inter-tribal mixing - but the constant that has ALWAYS been: is marriage is man and woman.

Well that's about to change as well. BTW, be careful about those things you quote to prove your point. Some of those "no-no's" you mention above were around for a LONG time. Furthermore, when all were of them were put aside, there was no direct harm to those who INSISTED that they remain intact. You guys just don't have a leg to stand on, other than that you want to assume responsibility for people who don't, and shouldn't, care what you think or want.

A couple hundred years is not a long time when were talking about civilization. Expand it too a thousand, still fairly small. Even then we are only talking about an individual culture, not the entire world.

"Don't have a leg to stand on?" Has the world as a whole and for, oh, the last 5000 years kept marriage between a man and a woman? BTW i'm not in the minorty on this issue. 38 states have passed 'defensive of marriage' acts. Even a liberal state such as Califorina passed a voter reforendium defining marriage as between "one man and one woman."

We're not arguing the Popularity or Tradition of it, but the Justice and Logic of it.

 

[shrumpage]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: shrumpage

I never said homosexuality is illegal or should be illegal.

I used the word "capable" for a reason - a man and a woman are 'capable' of having a relationship that produces childern. Bill and Ted are not capable of that type of realtionship [sic].

"Bill and Ted" don't need to answer to you.

I dont' get that.

by the very nature of bill and ted being two men - they aren't capable of having childern. They dont' need to answer to me about it- its given.

Same-sex marriages can also produce children, albeit, not directly. They can also adopt children that are wishing and hoping each day to be adopted. Even the American Association of Pediatrics supports same-sex marriage and adoption by same-sex couples.

How can Bill and Ted "produce" childeren [sic]? Thelma and Louis can not themselves produce childeren, either. To have a child in the situation a third party needs to be brought in. A third party, outside of the relationship, that would be able to produce a child with only ONE of them. The child would not be a product of their relationship.

It most certainly would be a product of their relationship. It's not a symbiotic relationship. Relationships are complex things involving love, trust, commitment and physical attraction.[/quote]

HOw can a child be a product of a reatltionship, when the child is created outside of that relationship?

Adoption in itself is not a production of the relationship and would happen with or with out.

With or without what? There are many who want to deny a same-sex couple the right to adopt.[/quote]

bad wording on my part-
adoption is not the creation of the child by the adopting couple-

What impacts would you wish to foist upon same-sex marriages? Love? Covered. Commitment? Covered. Pro-creation? Covered, via adoption and/or surrogate mother or other options.

Childeren [sic]. The offspring live well beyond the orginal [sic] couple and continue to have an impact on society. With out [sic] them, a society can not [sic] continue to exsist beyond a generation. Offspring is the one that [sic] that same sex couples can not [sic] have.

I've already refuted your claims. Surrogate mothers, adoption, etc. can be used to produce children. What about man/woman relationships where both parties are infertile/sterile? What about marriages of senior citizens past the age of bearing or producing children? Guess those should be banned, too, eh?[/quote]

refuted? no you made the point that childeren can only come from a third party - and not created by the couple. Having childeren is not the sole reason for being married, but it is the major one. And it is the reason that society has promoted it above other realtionships.

Besides, your apparent claim that the human race will die out should same-sex marriage be allowed is preposterous. Gays make up about 3.5-4% of the population. I think the human race is safe for quite some time.

i'm not worried about hte hume race being wiped out.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: shrumpage

HOw can a child be a product of a reatltionship, when the child is created outside of that relationship?

shrumpage, how about investing in a dictionary or using a spell checker?

Anyway, the child is the product of the relationship. At least one of the men involved will be the father (or, in the case of two women, one of the women will carry the baby) and the other will become an adopted father (or somesuch.) You are apparently incapable of understanding what a relationship really means. I pity you.

 

[shrumpage]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: shrumpage

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

Originally posted by: shrumpage

Through out history there has been realitvely short-lived no-no's on inter-racial, inter-cutlure, inter-religion, inter-ethinic, inter-tribal mixing - but the constant that has ALWAYS been: is marriage is man and woman.

Well that's about to change as well. BTW, be careful about those things you quote to prove your point. Some of those "no-no's" you mention above were around for a LONG time. Furthermore, when all were of them were put aside, there was no direct harm to those who INSISTED that they remain intact. You guys just don't have a leg to stand on, other than that you want to assume responsibility for people who don't, and shouldn't, care what you think or want.

A couple hundred years is not a long time when were talking about civilization. Expand it too a thousand, still fairly small. Even then we are only talking about an individual culture, not the entire world.

"Don't have a leg to stand on?" Has the world as a whole and for, oh, the last 5000 years kept marriage between a man and a woman? BTW i'm not in the minorty on this issue. 38 states have passed 'defensive of marriage' acts. Even a liberal state such as Califorina passed a voter reforendium defining marriage as between "one man and one woman."

We're not arguing the Popularity or Tradition of it, but the Justice and Logic of it.

ok -

the legal system reconizes that there are differences between man and woman.

the legal system reconizes different types of relationships - and defines these relationships.

a business partnership has different requirements then the requirements of a mother/daughter relationships before then can be considered such.

some of the requirements of legally reconized marriage: members must be of opposite sex, can't be related, and can't be current married to anyone else.

these requirements are enforced uniformly to meet the definations. I could not be considered a mother to my child (shurmpage= XY), not because of discremination with in the legal system, but i don't fit in the defination. I can argue that there is sexual discrimation and needs to be changed so i can be redefined as a mother, because i play that type of role in her life. But it still would not make me a mother.

 

[shrumpage]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: shrumpage

HOw can a child be a product of a reatltionship, when the child is created outside of that relationship?

shrumpage, how about investing in a dictionary or using a spell checker?

Anyway, the child is the product of the relationship. At least one of the men involved will be the father (or, in the case of two women, one of the women will carry the baby) and the other will become an adopted father (or somesuch.) You are apparently incapable of understanding what a relationship really means. I pity you.

I understand what a relationship means - but apparently term produce, or create is just as difficult concept for you to grasp.

Can two women produce/create a child?
Can two men produce/create a child?

How can a child created via a thrid party, be considered a creation of the orginal couple?

The same sex couple may love and raise the child, but it was not a product of that relationship.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: shrumpage

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: shrumpage

HOw can a child be a product of a reatltionship, when the child is created outside of that relationship?

shrumpage, how about investing in a dictionary or using a spell checker?

Anyway, the child is the product of the relationship. At least one of the men involved will be the father (or, in the case of two women, one of the women will carry the baby) and the other will become an adopted father (or somesuch.) You are apparently incapable of understanding what a relationship really means. I pity you.

I understand what a relationship means - but apparently term produce, or create is just as difficult concept for you to grasp.

Can two women produce/create a child?
Can two men produce/create a child?

How can a child created via a thrid party, be considered a creation of the orginal couple?

The same sex couple may love and raise the child, but it was not a product of that relationship.

Guess what, shrumpage? It doesn't matter!

That is by no means any type of justification to not allow same-sex marriages.

 

[shrumpage]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: shrumpage

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: shrumpage

HOw can a child be a product of a reatltionship, when the child is created outside of that relationship?

shrumpage, how about investing in a dictionary or using a spell checker?

Anyway, the child is the product of the relationship. At least one of the men involved will be the father (or, in the case of two women, one of the women will carry the baby) and the other will become an adopted father (or somesuch.) You are apparently incapable of understanding what a relationship really means. I pity you.

I understand what a relationship means - but apparently term produce, or create is just as difficult concept for you to grasp.

Can two women produce/create a child?
Can two men produce/create a child?

How can a child created via a thrid party, be considered a creation of the orginal couple?

The same sex couple may love and raise the child, but it was not a product of that relationship.

Guess what, shrumpage? It doesn't matter!

That is by no means any type of justification to not allow same-sex marriages.

it invalidates your arguement of same sex couple 'producing' childern

no, it goes back to my orginal arguement that - there is a fundemenatl difference between a same sex relationship and a man/woman relationship.

 

[conjur]

Yes, technically, two members of the same-sex cannot produce a child.

But, a same-sex relationship CAN produce a child.

It's sad you don't understand the difference.


What's even more sad is that you think it's somehow grounds to ban same-sex marriages.

 

[shrumpage]

Originally posted by: conjur
Yes, technically, two members of the same-sex cannot produce a child.

But, a same-sex relationship CAN produce a child.

It's sad you don't understand the difference.


What's even more sad is that you think it's somehow grounds to ban same-sex marriages.

what is sad, is that you've missed my point entirely - that like the sexes, there is fundemental difference between same sex couples and man/woman couples.

being able to produce childeren is reflection of that.

btw - i acknowledge that a same sex couple can raise childeren - but that relationship can not have offspring.

Is there a difference between a same sex couple and a man/woman couple?

 

[HardWarrior]

Originally posted by: shrumpage
what doesn't fly?

How does following my logic draw you to that?
Kids are REQUIRED to for a society to continue beyond a generation. I was using the ability to have kids a the fundetmental difference between same sex couple and man/woman couple.

No offense intended, but I don't think you're equipped to engage in the subject matter of this thread. Your view of the world around you is far to insular and parochial. I find it strange, though telling, that most if not all of the people on the other side of this issue share these traits.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: shrumpage

Originally posted by: conjur
Yes, technically, two members of the same-sex cannot produce a child.

But, a same-sex relationship CAN produce a child.

It's sad you don't understand the difference.


What's even more sad is that you think it's somehow grounds to ban same-sex marriages.

what is sad, is that you've missed my point entirely - that like the sexes, there is fundemental difference between same sex couples and man/woman couples.

being able to produce childeren is reflection of that.

btw - i acknowledge that a same sex couple can raise childeren - but that relationship can not have offspring.

Is there a difference between a same sex couple and a man/woman couple?

In the eyes of the law? No.

In the eyes of bigots? Yes.

 

[shrumpage]

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

Originally posted by: shrumpage
what doesn't fly?

How does following my logic draw you to that?
Kids are REQUIRED to for a society to continue beyond a generation. I was using the ability to have kids a the fundetmental difference between same sex couple and man/woman couple.

No offense intended, but I don't think you're equipped to engage in the subject matter of this thread. Your view of the world around you is far to insular and parochial. I find it strange, though telling, that most if not all of the people on the other side of this issue share these traits.

Excuse me?

Because I believe the defination of marriage should remain between a man and a woman, makes me narrowminded? oh-- i mean have a narrow view on the issue.

So far i've engaged in the subject at hand with out stooping to regilous zealotry or name calling - that seems to be quite a few steps above most around here.

i'll engage you directly -

is there a difference between a man and a woman?
is there a difference between a same sex couple and man/woman couple?

 

[shrumpage]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: shrumpage

Originally posted by: conjur
Yes, technically, two members of the same-sex cannot produce a child.

But, a same-sex relationship CAN produce a child.

It's sad you don't understand the difference.


What's even more sad is that you think it's somehow grounds to ban same-sex marriages.

what is sad, is that you've missed my point entirely - that like the sexes, there is fundemental difference between same sex couples and man/woman couples.

being able to produce childeren is reflection of that.

btw - i acknowledge that a same sex couple can raise childeren - but that relationship can not have offspring.

Is there a difference between a same sex couple and a man/woman couple?

In the eyes of the law? No.

In the eyes of bigots? Yes.

actually the law only says the man/woman can get married - the law does reconize a difference. just like the law reconizes a difference between the sexs.

 

[conjur]

The State of Massachusett's Supreme Court disagrees with you.