Gay Marriage to the Rescue!

[LuvRPgrl]

You laugh, then proclaim there are thousands of couples who have had to resort to invetro, and declare yourself the winner?!! hahaha

so, by virtue of the fact that SOME heterosexual couples cant conceive means NONE Of them can? Odd logic.

So, Im still waiting for your enforcable code to deny infertile couples the privledge of marriage.

Oh, and by the way, your mentioning invetro, just further proves my point, when was the last time two homoesexual men had invetro work? BWAQHHAHAHAHAHHAHAH,,,,,,,,,,,BWAHAHHAHAHHAH
TALK ABOUT FUNNY !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

OH, AND one final hint, whenever you have to self proclaim yourself the winner of a debate, PATHETIC, and proof you are losing.

oh brother. this is such a weak arguement on so many levels. TRULY, if this is what you have to throw out, it surely PROVES how weak your posistion is.
I would be embarrased to provide such an arguement in a debate.
sterile couples often become fertile.
couples without kids who are married could become with child at any time. it would obviously be way too complicated, involved and full of fraud to try to have different tax codes for married couples with children vs married couples without. But you already knew that.
marriage is intended to encourage having families, homosexuals cannot biologically procreate. hence they are automatically precluded from any attempt by any human, or any human organization of being able to be inticed to "create" children.
All other couples, may or may not be able to, we cannot always say for certain, so to attempt to slice up the remaining pool is a waste of time and creating a complication within the tax code which would be burdensome and counterproductive.







which is a sub set of DEMOCRACY
which is a FORM of a democracy.
No true pure forms of democratic governments exist, or could exist.
semantics.
try again !

Try again. The whole, female + male = kids argument does not hold water when we allow sterile couples to marry. Try again.

Aha... ahahahahahahahahaha... Sterile couples often become fertile... Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha... Wow. I completely won this debate. Perhaps you'd like to tell that to the thousands of couples who had to resort to invitrofertilization to conceive. Ahahaha... Wow. Someone who obviously knows nothing about what they're talking about. That's a big insert foot in mouth comment right there.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

After my initial reaction, I have decided to further debate your points, so that some people may see the logical position in this debate afterall..

So, you do enjoy pain eh?

Ad hominem..

it was a statement of opinion, not a point of a debate. I guess you might learn the difference someday. You see, I FOLLOWED IT with the facts that support the opinion.

OK, Doctor LuvRPGRL :rotflmao:.

well, well, well, you think its so ridiculous that infertile couples can get the woman pregnant, then you follow up by pointing out one way it occurs, invitro, what? are you retarded or something? GOOD GOD man, this is a case of the judge making my own arguement. Maybe if you learn anything about debating you will learn what that means.
Ok, so now, you propose that infertile couples should be denied marriage licenses if we are going to deny them to homosexual couples based on the idea of not being able to produce offspring.
Now, since you want to include them, the burden of proof that they can never have children, the infertile couples, is on you. I claim homosexual male couples can never have natural born children of their own, do you care to challenge that?

Online ad:
"Expert infertility treatment nationwide from 28 fertility clinics and over 100 infertility specialists. Artificial Insemination, In Vitro Fertilization (IVF), Egg Donor, Tubal Reversal and more.
To our International Visitors
Travel to the U.S. for advanced infertility treatment, including IVF, ICSI, PGD, Egg Donor & more. Contact one of our clinics now. Use the form at the bottom of this page (for "zip" enter 10577). "
You think thats directed at homosexual male couples? Yea, a lesbian couple could have one of them inseminated, but NEVER could have a child from BOTH of them. THOUSANDS< UPON THOUSANDS of infertile heterosexual wind up having offspring that are the product of BOTH the adults in the marriage.

OH, while you are laughing, read this, its a stat on a percentage of women who otherwise were confirmed infertile, but wind up having a baby from their egg and their husbands sperm:
The U.S. Centers for Disease Prevention (CDC) collects success rates on ART for some fertility clinics. According to the 2003 CDC report on ART, the average percentage of ART cycles that led to a healthy baby were as follows:

37.3% in women under the age of 35

The argument is very relevant to this debate. You said that we grant marriage licenses so that couples can raise kids in a healthy environment. I asked why do we grant licenses to those who do not want kids, or are incapable of having kids? Can you not see the connection..

see above. only couples that we know for a fact that have never had kids are homosexual couples. even some very, very old people have gotten pregnant.
couples who can NEVER have kids are not in the same category as couples who MAY or may not be able to have kids. Your dots are waaayyyyyyyyy too far apart to be connected.

Try again, ms nub. You can cry semantics all you want, but the truth is a federal republic is not a form of democracy. They share related concepts, but are not the same types of government. Learn2play k thx..

sorry dude, a republic is a form of democracy.
From dict. com:
republic

n 1: a political system in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who can elect people to represent them [syn: democracy, commonwealth] [ant: autocracy] 2: a form of government whose head of state is not a monarch; "the head of state in a republic is usually a president"

how do you say OUCH !?????????

U been OWNED !! :rotflmao:












I like how you "red herring" something that is in direct context to the argument at hand, and yet completely ignore the fact that the whole "democracy" debate is a red herring attempt in and of itself, but you know thats ok. I've come to accept that you have very little actual knowledge about what you are talking about, the scientific, political or philsophical thoughts behind what you are saying. Its ok, you can acknowledge that you dont know what you're talking about.[/QUOTE]

 

[PsuedoGhost]

You laugh, then proclaim there are thousands of couples who have had to resort to invetro, and declare yourself the winner?!! hahaha

so, by virtue of the fact that SOME heterosexual couples cant conceive means NONE Of them can? Odd logic.

So, Im still waiting for your enforcable code to deny infertile couples the privledge of marriage.

Oh, and by the way, your mentioning invetro, just further proves my point, when was the last time two homoesexual men had invetro work? BWAQHHAHAHAHAHHAHAH,,,,,,,,,,,BWAHAHHAHAHHAH
TALK ABOUT FUNNY !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

OH, AND one final hint, whenever you have to self proclaim yourself the winner of a debate, PATHETIC, and proof you are losing.

Ad hominem.

 

[PsuedoGhost]

So, you do enjoy pain eh?




it was a statement of opinion, not a point of a debate. I guess you might learn the difference someday. You see, I FOLLOWED IT with the facts that support the opinion.

Red herring.

well, well, well, you think its so ridiculous that infertile couples can get the woman pregnant, then you follow up by pointing out one way it occurs, invitro, what? are you retarded or something? GOOD GOD man, this is a case of the judge making my own arguement. Maybe if you learn anything about debating you will learn what that means.
Ok, so now, you propose that infertile couples should be denied marriage licenses if we are going to deny them to homosexual couples based on the idea of not being able to produce offspring.
Now, since you want to include them, the burden of proof that they can never have children, the infertile couples, is on you. I claim homosexual male couples can never have natural born children of their own, do you care to challenge that?

Online ad:
"Expert infertility treatment nationwide from 28 fertility clinics and over 100 infertility specialists. Artificial Insemination, In Vitro Fertilization (IVF), Egg Donor, Tubal Reversal and more.
To our International Visitors
Travel to the U.S. for advanced infertility treatment, including IVF, ICSI, PGD, Egg Donor & more. Contact one of our clinics now. Use the form at the bottom of this page (for "zip" enter 10577). "
You think thats directed at homosexual male couples? Yea, a lesbian couple could have one of them inseminated, but NEVER could have a child from BOTH of them. THOUSANDS< UPON THOUSANDS of infertile heterosexual wind up having offspring that are the product of BOTH the adults in the marriage.

OH, while you are laughing, read this, its a stat on a percentage of women who otherwise were confirmed infertile, but wind up having a baby from their egg and their husbands sperm:
The U.S. Centers for Disease Prevention (CDC) collects success rates on ART for some fertility clinics. According to the 2003 CDC report on ART, the average percentage of ART cycles that led to a healthy baby were as follows:

37.3% in women under the age of 35

Was I denying that infertile couples can still have children? No. I was saying that why do we grant marriage licenses who choose to not have children, are incapable of having children (without scientific help) etc etc. You could always argue that adoption is viable, which it is, but the question still stands. Instead of trying to circumvent the argument, why don't you address it head on? Even more pressing, why do we allow people to marry unless they have kids already, if the sole purpose of marriage is to create a good environment for children to grow up in? Why the logical inconsistencies? A gay couple could adopt a child couldn't they (the legality of this is up to debate, but lets assume that they could), why then should they not be allowed to marry? After all a married relationship is significantly more stable than one that is not.

see above. only couples that we know for a fact that have never had kids are homosexual couples. even some very, very old people have gotten pregnant.
couples who can NEVER have kids are not in the same category as couples who MAY or may not be able to have kids. Your dots are waaayyyyyyyyy too far apart to be connected.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Address the issue head on without dancing around it. Why can people who are unable to conceive allowed to marry? Marriage according to you is there to provide stable households for children to grow up in.

sorry dude, a republic is a form of democracy.
From dict. com:
republic

n 1: a political system in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who can elect people to represent them [syn: democracy, commonwealth] [ant: autocracy] 2: a form of government whose head of state is not a monarch; "the head of state in a republic is usually a president"

how do you say OUCH !?????????

U been OWNED !! :rotflmao:

Haha. Go wiki federal republic ...bitch. Try again. Red herring.

I like how you "red herring" something that is in direct context to the argument at hand, and yet completely ignore the fact that the whole "democracy" debate is a red herring attempt in and of itself, but you know thats ok.

Red herring.

Almost a logical fallacy for every argument! Damn!

 

[musicman]

Address the issue head on without dancing around it.

I'll take a stab at it, if you don't mind. The core issue is being lost in all the verbiage, IMO - that being: whose call is it?

Why can people who are unable to conceive allowed to marry? Marriage according to you is there to provide stable households for children to grow up in.

Society has deemed the marriage of a man and woman beneficial to itself, from time immemorial. This is a fundamental truth of life, as understood by the people who - ultimately - call the shots in our constitutional republic: the voters. It is, therefore, incumbent upon proponents of homosexual marriage to convince the voters that this practice will be beneficial to society.

Or am I wrong? Is this mattter just too important to be left to the unenlightened masses? Should it, rather, become the purview of an unelected, unaccountable feudal lord in a black robe? Consider your answer carefully, PseudoGhost; it will tell a lot about you.

 

[PsuedoGhost]

I'll take a stab at it, if you don't mind. The core issue is being lost in all the verbiage, IMO - that being: whose call is it?



Society has deemed the marriage of a man and woman beneficial to itself, from time immemorial. This is a fundamental truth of life, as understood by the people who - ultimately - call the shots in our constitutional republic: the voters. It is, therefore, incumbent upon proponents of homosexual marriage to convince the voters that this practice will be beneficial to society.

Or am I wrong? Is this mattter just too important to be left to the unenlightened masses? Should it, rather, become the purview of an unelected, unaccountable feudal lord in a black robe? Consider your answer carefully, PseudoGhost; it will tell a lot about you.

The populace can pass any law that they wish. The laws are ultimately up to interpretation from the Court system. If the system finds the spirit of a law to be in direct contravention of the US Constitution, then such a law is struck down. I honestly cannot see how a bill denying people the right to choose, will be upheld as Constitutional. If it does come before the supreme court and is upheld, then I will consider the matter closed. Until that day, or a constitutional amendment (SHOULD NOT EVER COME TO THAT) I have a feeling that we will see individual states proceed how they desire. Ultimately, this is perhaps the best way to proceed about things, and allow states to eventually come around. All it will take is a few states to legalize it, before the others realize that its not the end of the world as we are led to believe.

In conclusion: Gay marriage, is a states rights issue. It will come before the Supreme Court eventually. When it does, I will fully support whichever decision they make.

 

[musicman]

Gay marriage, is a states rights issue.

Thanks for the reply. I agree on this much of it, at any rate.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Thanks for the reply. I agree on this much of it, at any rate.

You do realize PB stated in that post, that he believes the 9 people in the black robes should decide it?

"In conclusion: Gay marriage, is a states rights issue. It will come before the Supreme Court eventually. When it does, I will fully support whichever decision they make."

Or at least the supreme courts of the states.

 

[PsuedoGhost]

You do realize PB stated in that post, that he believes the 9 people in the black robes should decide it?

"In conclusion: Gay marriage, is a states rights issue. It will come before the Supreme Court eventually. When it does, I will fully support whichever decision they make."

Or at least the supreme courts of the states.

Whats the issue with that? If it comes to the supreme court (it most likely will), then thats the process that it takes. The process thats dictated by the Constitution. What exactly is the problem with that? If it gets struck down so be it. If it gets upheld then its unfortunate, but thats the way its going to be.

The people have the right to enact a law banning gay marriage. Other groups of citizens have the right to challenge said law through the courts. If the courts deem it to be unconstitutional, then that is their prerogative. This is the process as laid out in the Constitution. It's not like we're usurping your rights to make laws. Besides, the SC is more conservative now then ever in the last 30ish years.

 

[musicman]

You do realize PB stated in that post, that he believes the 9 people in the black robes should decide it?

Yes - that's why I sliced pretty thin the portion of his post that I agreed with.

 

[Matrixx8]

Speaking of delusional. You do realize the stats you quoted are for 2003 and older. Sorry to inform you, but thats getting close to being three years old.

Indeed. But these data are the latest facts available. There is considerable work required to compile such data. The information must be submitted by the countries in question. Certain data is not measured annually, such as population censuses and all information for some 180 countries has to be collated, calculated into indicators and expressed in relative terms. That is how data collection works. They are not, as you seem to think, merely exit polls. The 2005 report uses the latest available figures. If you consult HDI trends, you can see that variations over the years are relatively small.

If you think there is a better way to gather more up-to-date information, I'm sure the world's statisticians would welcome your input.

THe real facts show the direction things are going in western europe is down.

Why don't you post the real facts so we can see what you are talking about?

Also, your HDI doesnt embed immigration of muslims and their refusal to adapt to the culture of the country they emigrate to. Their are many other factors that it doesnt include.

What evidence do you have that such figures are not included? And what makes you think that Muslims refuse to adapt to the culture of the country they emigrate to. What countries do you have in mind? What is your evidence for this statement?

In the Netherlands, for example, some 6 percent of the population is Muslim. Most are of Turkish origin and fairly well integrated. If there is an integration problem, it stems from new arrivals, not "embedded" inhabitants.

HOW RED IS YOUR FACE NOW?

I gave you the facts as they are known. If you have other "facts" that do not involve your own personal wishes, gut feelings or whims, all you have to do is post them.

Unless and until you provide some substantiation of your claims, backed up by reliable sources, I'm afraid my original statement still stands.

 

[Matrixx8]

YOU ARE AND YET YOU ARE ALWAYS SO QUICK, AS ALL LIBERALS ARE, TO CALL THOSE WHO DISAGREE WITH YOU "HOMOPHOBES"

You are imagining things.

ISNT IT MORE EMBARRASSSING TO NOT BE ABLE TO STAY ON TOPIC??? FIRST, HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE ISNT BANNED, IT JUST ISNT INCLUDED. CITE ME A BAN ON HOMOSEXUAL, SAME SEX MARRIAGE THAT EXISTED BEFORE THIS CENTURY. SECOND, YOU NEED TO LEARN TO FOLLOW A TRAIN OF THOUGHT. YOU MADE A CLAIM, AS I RECALL, ABOUT SOME OF US ATTEMPTING TO IMPOSE OUR VIEW OF MORALITY VIA THE LAW, ON OTHERS. NOW, YOU FAILED TO RESPOND TO THAT, INSTEAD YOU MENTIONED THAT RAPE IS VIOLATING SOMEONES RIGHT, NOW, YOU DO REALIZE THAT MAKING SUCH A STATEMENT IS MERELY STATING YOUR MORAL POINT OF VIEW? WHICH YOU CLAIMED IS DOOMED TO FAILURE. NOW, DO YOU BELIEVE THE LAWS OPPOSING RAPE ARE DOOMED TO FAILURE?

Apparently you find it difficult to distinguish between actions that violate other people's rights and those that are entirely personal. Laws are designed to protect individual rights, not to violate them. Homosexuals who want to marry do not violate anyone's rights to anything, including marriage. Actions or laws designed to prevent same-sex marriages are clearly discrimnatory and out of step with most of the civilized world. Most open persecution of gays and lesbians takes place in fundamentalist Islamic countries, as the link in my previous post shows.

AND ONCE AGAIN, THAT WASNT THE POINT OF THE SUB DISCUSSION. THE POINT WAS YOU ATTEMPTED TO MAKE IT SEEM AS THOUGH A MAJORITY OF AMERICANS ARE OPPOSED TO LAWS PREVENTING SAME SEX MARRIAGE BY CITING THEIR REJECTION OF A FEDERAL BAN, BUT, AND I WILL REPEAT MYSELF, THE REJECTION OF THE IDEA OF A FEDERAL BAN ON SAME SEX MARRIAGE IS NOT BASED ON THE IDEA OF BANNING SAME SEX MARRIAGE, BUT ONLY THAT AMERICANS PREFER TO SEE THAT ISSUE DEALT WITH AT A STATE LEVEL. SORRY, YOU AINT GONNA PULL THAT LIBERAL SIDE TRACKING DEBATING CRAP ON ME.

Wrong. I simply pointed out that there appears to be little support for Bush's proposed constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.

HUH??????????? WOW,,,FIRST, THE ATTEMPT TO PASS THE MARRIAGE ACT ON A FEDERAL LEVEL IS NOT AN ATTMEPT TO PROHIBIT STATES FROM ADOPTING SAME SEX MARRIAGE LAWS, ITS AN ATTEMPT TO STOP ACTIVIST COURTS FROM SELF IMPOSING SAME SEX MARRIAGE LAWS ON AN UNWILLING PUBLIC.

The only role of SCOTUS is decide whether state laws are constitutional. I know of no instance in which the Supreme Court imposed any law on anyone.

PLEASE, PLEASE TELL ME WHICH STATES HAVE SAME SEX MARRIAGE LAWS PASSED BY THE PEOPLE?

Unless things have changed recently, Massachusetts has such a law. There are five other states that permit same-sex marriage (or at least have no laws banning them): Connecticut, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York and Rhode Island.

YOU MEAN LIKE YOUR PREJUDICE THAT FUNDAMENTALISM IS IRRATIONAL?

If one uses the scientific definition of "fundamentalism", which a process whereby one starts with the conclusions one wants and then tries to fit the facts to justify these conclusions, fundamentalism is an irrational process. A rational process is one in which the sequence of information gathering follows a strictly natural path -- empirical input, inductive and deductive analysis, verification and reasoned outcome, based on the evidence available.

Does that anwer your question?

 

[Matrixx8]

In my last post, Luv, I forgot to mention the source for the defeated senate bill on banning gay marriage. Here it is.

The Republican-controlled Senate yesterday blocked a proposed constitutional amendment to bar same-sex marriage, effectively killing the White House-backed measure for the rest of this year and handing President Bush a big election-year defeat.

DISCUSSING THE PURPOSE OF MARRIAGE DOES NOT IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM DENEGRATE WOMEN INTO THE ROLE OF BABY MACHINES. THATS JUST A RED HERRING.

And the point is that marriage is about values that do not preclude same-sex partners. Gay men could adopt children and gay women can bear children, if they so wish.

RELYING ON "YOU WERE WRONG ABOUT SOME THINGS, HENCE YOU WERE WRONG ABOUT EVERYTHING" IS AN EXTREMELY EMBARRASSING AND WEAK POSISTION. TRY PROVIDING SOMETHING OF SUBSTANCE.

But it is not MY position. You continue to play semantic games.

EXAMPLE, "IT WAS WRONG TO IMPOSE HARSH PENALTIES FOR STEALING BREAD CIRCA 1450'S ENGLAND, THEREFORE IT IS WRONG TO IMPOSE HARSH PENALTIES FOR TERRORISM WHICH INCLUDES BLOWING LITTLE CHILDRENS BODIES INTO PIECES OF OBLIVION" IS A BOGUS ARGUEMENT.

That is not MY argument. You should try quoting my exact words and then we can examine who says, means, implies or infers what. These are straw-man tactics and you know it.

 

[sitarro]

If one uses the scientific definition of "fundamentalism", which a process whereby one starts with the conclusions one wants and then tries to fit the facts to justify these conclusions, fundamentalism is an irrational process. A rational process is one in which the sequence of information gathering follows a strictly natural path -- empirical input, inductive and deductive analysis, verification and reasoned outcome, based on the evidence available.

Isn't this exactly the way homosexual "scientist" have gone about proving that homosexuality is not a lifestyle but actually a birth defect?

Why is it so hard for the leftist nut cases to admit that this whole "Gay Marriage" crap is not only NOT about marriage it is more about the self serving efforts of homosexuals to get legal validation for their behavior so they can more easily obtain pets (adopt children) to experiment on and feel better about the fact that their entire definition of themselves is about how and what they have sex with.

 

[PsuedoGhost]

Isn't this exactly the way homosexual "scientist" have gone about proving that homosexuality is not a lifestyle but actually a birth defect?

Huh? All scientists who work on this issue are homosexual?

Why is it so hard for the leftist nut cases to admit that this whole "Gay Marriage" crap is not only NOT about marriage it is more about the self serving efforts of homosexuals to get legal validation for their behavior so they can more easily obtain pets (adopt children) to experiment on and feel better about the fact that their entire definition of themselves is about how and what they have sex with.

You couldn't be farther from the truth if you tried.

 

[sitarro]

Huh? All scientists who work on this issue are homosexual?

Actually ace, the guy that started the whole "gay gene" theory was trying to prove that homosexuality was something they were born with after his LOVER died of AIDS... this was at least 15 years ago, he needed that proof to try to get more funding.

You couldn't be farther from the truth if you tried.

Really? What would your reason be for marrying your homosexual lover? Try to answer this one wthout using the standard homosexual talking points.

 

[Matrixx8]

Isn't this exactly the way homosexual "scientist" have gone about proving that homosexuality is not a lifestyle but actually a birth defect?

Why is it so hard for the leftist nut cases to admit that this whole "Gay Marriage" crap is not only NOT about marriage it is more about the self serving efforts of homosexuals to get legal validation for their behavior so they can more easily obtain pets (adopt children) to experiment on and feel better about the fact that their entire definition of themselves is about how and what they have sex with.

Birds of prey, heh? Well, I'm afraid there are no mice in this field, Sitarro.

 

[PsuedoGhost]

Actually ace, the guy that started the whole "gay gene" theory was trying to prove that homosexuality was something they were born with after his LOVER died of AIDS... this was at least 15 years ago, he needed that proof to try to get more funding.

Prove it.

Really? What would your reason be for marrying your homosexual lover? Try to answer this one wthout using the standard homosexual talking points.

I'm straight as an arrow. Sorry to disappoint, but I'm not interested in your homosexual relations.

 

[sitarro]

Prove it.

What would be proof to you? What source would work for you? I could have multiple sources and your reply would be to try to discredit them because you have made up your mind. I refuse to waste my time, why don't you try to prove me wrong.

I'm straight as an arrow. Sorry to disappoint, but I'm not interested in your homosexual relations.

Sure, whatever you say, really..... I believe you.....he he

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Prove it.






I'm straight as an arrow. Sorry to disappoint, but I'm not interested in your homosexual relations.

Me thinks Sitarro's question was a hypothetical. But we could simply ask it this way, without the usual homo talking head points,, what would be the purpose of allowing same sex marriages.?