The Homosexual Dilemma

[The Rabbi]

Yet another strawman. Nobody's claiming that procreation is a requirement for marriage. What we are saying is that when you deliberately construct a union that can't produce children, you shouldn't have the right to abuse children by sucking them into your deviant apparatus utilizing artificial means.

You are one heartless form of human flesh. Too many women are unable to bear children; therefore, thanks to today's technology, they are able to use other means to process their eggs. Shame on you for manifesting your egomaniacal, abysmally smug, self-righteous, judgmental thinking into hate speech.

So you feel that it's hateful, to point out that two women are not designed by nature to procreate?
What other facts do you feel represent an irrational feeling of dislike? Besides "the Sun is the fundamental basis of the earth's climate temperature", of course.

Two women may not be able to have a child naturally without technological help....BUT that is no basis for legal discrimination. See how simple that is?

It's not discrimination. Two women can get married and have all the benefits the government confers, as long as they get married to two men.
See how easy that is?

This isn't exactly a very compelling legal argument. Which it is why it is being laughed out of most courtrooms across the country.

Argumentum ad populum fallacy!
Rabbi rules!

 

[Lilah]

You are one heartless form of human flesh. Too many women are unable to bear children; therefore, thanks to today's technology, they are able to use other means to process their eggs. Shame on you for manifesting your egomaniacal, abysmally smug, self-righteous, judgmental thinking into hate speech.

So you feel that it's hateful, to point out that two women are not designed by nature to procreate?

What other facts do you feel represent an irrational feeling of dislike? Besides "the Sun is the fundamental basis of the earth's climate temperature", of course.

What's with you and procreation? Do you display such vigorous passion for say someone like Nadya Suleman, who has given birth to 14 children and is unable to care for them economically, as well as physically, mentally, and emotionally. Would you personally be averse to having someone adopting her children if that's what she wanted? Would you find it offensive if a couple adopted a child or children from a third-world country?
The sun produces energy, and all you're producing is stagnant hot air.

You miss the point completely.

You don't have a valid point. You just enjoy pontificating.

You write that with a straight face after posting a multiple sentence rant that missed the point of the argument? Seriously?

Don't be such a sore loser.

 

[g5000]

Hey, dat nigga can have all the benefits of gubmit as long as he marry a nigga womans.

See how easy dat iz?

 

[Lilah]

It's not discrimination. Two women can get married and have all the benefits the government confers, as long as they get married to two men.
See how easy that is?

You really work hard at being obtuse.

What work?

 

[The Rabbi]

It's not discrimination. Two women can get married and have all the benefits the government confers, as long as they get married to two men.
See how easy that is?

You really work hard at being obtuse.

Explain the discrimination here.
Two women cannot get married to each other with state license, regardless of whether they are gay or straight
Two men cannot get married to each other wth state license, regardless of whether they are gay or striaght
A man and a woman can get married to each other, regardless of whether they are gay or straight.
WHat about this is difficult? There is no discrimination whatsoever.

 

[g5000]

This isn't exactly a very compelling legal argument. Which it is why it is being laughed out of most courtrooms across the country.

Argumentum ad populum fallacy!
Rabbi rules!

Look at Rabbi. Using logical fallacies, but doing it wrong. BWA-HA-HA-HA!

Logic course. Take one.

 

[The Rabbi]

So you feel that it's hateful, to point out that two women are not designed by nature to procreate?

What other facts do you feel represent an irrational feeling of dislike? Besides "the Sun is the fundamental basis of the earth's climate temperature", of course.

What's with you and procreation? Do you display such vigorous passion for say someone like Nadya Suleman, who has given birth to 14 children and is unable to care for them economically, as well as physically, mentally, and emotionally. Would you personally be averse to having someone adopting her children if that's what she wanted? Would you find it offensive if a couple adopted a child or children from a third-world country?
The sun produces energy, and all you're producing is stagnant hot air.

You miss the point completely.

You don't have a valid point. You just enjoy pontificating.

You write that with a straight face after posting a multiple sentence rant that missed the point of the argument? Seriously?

Don't be such a sore loser.

OK you are clearly not up to the level of debate requried here. You go on Iggy, buh bye.

 

[The Rabbi]

Hey, dat nigga can have all the benefits of gubmit as long as he marry a nigga womans.

See how easy dat iz?

Red herring fallacy!
Rabbi rules!

 

[Lilah]

What's with you and procreation? Do you display such vigorous passion for say someone like Nadya Suleman, who has given birth to 14 children and is unable to care for them economically, as well as physically, mentally, and emotionally. Would you personally be averse to having someone adopting her children if that's what she wanted? Would you find it offensive if a couple adopted a child or children from a third-world country?
The sun produces energy, and all you're producing is stagnant hot air.

You miss the point completely.

You don't have a valid point. You just enjoy pontificating.

You write that with a straight face after posting a multiple sentence rant that missed the point of the argument? Seriously?

Don't be such a sore loser.

OK you are clearly not up to the level of debate requried here. You go on Iggy, buh bye.

Do you really believe you are participating in a debate? How cute.

 

[g5000]

It's not discrimination. Two women can get married and have all the benefits the government confers, as long as they get married to two men.
See how easy that is?

You really work hard at being obtuse.

Explain the discrimination here.
Two women cannot get married to each other with state license, regardless of whether they are gay or straight
Two men cannot get married to each other wth state license, regardless of whether they are gay or striaght
A man and a woman can get married to each other, regardless of whether they are gay or straight.
WHat about this is difficult? There is no discrimination whatsoever.

It is discrimination against gays, dufus.

 

[g5000]

Hey, dat nigga can have all the benefits of gubmit as long as he marry a nigga womans.

See how easy dat iz?

Red herring fallacy!
Rabbi rules!

Still doing it wrong.

 

[mdk]

You are one heartless form of human flesh. Too many women are unable to bear children; therefore, thanks to today's technology, they are able to use other means to process their eggs. Shame on you for manifesting your egomaniacal, abysmally smug, self-righteous, judgmental thinking into hate speech.

So you feel that it's hateful, to point out that two women are not designed by nature to procreate?
What other facts do you feel represent an irrational feeling of dislike? Besides "the Sun is the fundamental basis of the earth's climate temperature", of course.

Two women may not be able to have a child naturally without technological help....BUT that is no basis for legal discrimination. See how simple that is?

It's not discrimination. Two women can get married and have all the benefits the government confers, as long as they get married to two men.
See how easy that is?

This isn't exactly a very compelling legal argument. Which it is why it is being laughed out of most courtrooms across the country.

Argumentum ad populum fallacy!
Rabbi rules!

While I find your delusions of grandeur comical, it in no way changes the fact that your position is failing miserably.

 

[The Rabbi]

Hey, dat nigga can have all the benefits of gubmit as long as he marry a nigga womans.

See how easy dat iz?

Red herring fallacy!
Rabbi rules!

Still doing it wrong.

Translation: I dont know what I'm talking about.
You couldnt even refute the notion that homosexual parents ipso facto are abusive. That ought to be a cinch, yet you failed there too and reverted to name calling.

 

[The Rabbi]

So you feel that it's hateful, to point out that two women are not designed by nature to procreate?
What other facts do you feel represent an irrational feeling of dislike? Besides "the Sun is the fundamental basis of the earth's climate temperature", of course.

Two women may not be able to have a child naturally without technological help....BUT that is no basis for legal discrimination. See how simple that is?

It's not discrimination. Two women can get married and have all the benefits the government confers, as long as they get married to two men.
See how easy that is?

This isn't exactly a very compelling legal argument. Which it is why it is being laughed out of most courtrooms across the country.

Argumentum ad populum fallacy!
Rabbi rules!

While I find your delusions of grandeur comical, it in no way changes the fact that your position is failing miserably.

I point out your argument is a logical fallacy and Im the one failing? No, dont think so.

 

[The Rabbi]

It's not discrimination. Two women can get married and have all the benefits the government confers, as long as they get married to two men.
See how easy that is?

You really work hard at being obtuse.

Explain the discrimination here.
Two women cannot get married to each other with state license, regardless of whether they are gay or straight
Two men cannot get married to each other wth state license, regardless of whether they are gay or striaght
A man and a woman can get married to each other, regardless of whether they are gay or straight.
WHat about this is difficult? There is no discrimination whatsoever.

It is discrimination against gays, dufus.

I just demonstrated it was no such thing, moron. Gay or straight two same sex people cannot marry. Do you thnk there is a gay test to get married?

 

[hangover]

You miss the point completely.

You don't have a valid point. You just enjoy pontificating.

You write that with a straight face after posting a multiple sentence rant that missed the point of the argument? Seriously?

Don't be such a sore loser.

OK you are clearly not up to the level of debate requried here. You go on Iggy, buh bye.

Do you really believe you are participating in a debate? How cute.

Rabbi is so far out in right field, he's not even on the same planet. He's the god of his own little la la land, in a toatally different dimension. Even Ted Cruz can't get there.

 

[The Rabbi]

You don't have a valid point. You just enjoy pontificating.

You write that with a straight face after posting a multiple sentence rant that missed the point of the argument? Seriously?

Don't be such a sore loser.

OK you are clearly not up to the level of debate requried here. You go on Iggy, buh bye.

Do you really believe you are participating in a debate? How cute.

Rabbi is so far out in right field, he's not even on the same planet. He's the god of his own little la la land, in a toatally different dimension. Even Ted Cruz can't get there.

Was there something you wanted to add here? I realize you probably cant because you're stooopid.

 

[bodecea]

Yet another strawman. Nobody's claiming that procreation is a requirement for marriage.

The claim is frequently made that marriage tax breaks are to encourage procreation.

The claim is that Marriage is the natural result of the natural human physiological design, which serves the biological imperative to propagate the species.

That in no way requires procreation be the purpose of marriage, only that such DEFINES MARRIAGE.

Now... with that said, there would be nothing wrong with that being the case. As it certainly follows... but just because marriage is opened to people who do not intend to have children, that does not mean that marriage must include those who nature specifically designed to BE INCAPABLE of producing children.

This is really VERY SIMPLE stuff, yet it seems to be WELL beyond your means to grasp.

I thought we agreed that you'd stay in the "Fire HOT! - WATER WET!" thread? You do SO well over there. Why do you insist on cognitively swimming beyond your intellectual depth?

Sorry, but having the state treat us differently in that regard is UnConstitutional....that's why your side keeps losing in court.

 

[mdk]

It's not discrimination. Two women can get married and have all the benefits the government confers, as long as they get married to two men.
See how easy that is?

You really work hard at being obtuse.

Explain the discrimination here.
Two women cannot get married to each other with state license, regardless of whether they are gay or straight
Two men cannot get married to each other wth state license, regardless of whether they are gay or striaght
A man and a woman can get married to each other, regardless of whether they are gay or straight.
WHat about this is difficult? There is no discrimination whatsoever.

It is discrimination against gays, dufus.

I just demonstrated it was no such thing, moron. Gay or straight two same sex people cannot marry. Do you thnk there is a gay test to get married?

And that same rationale was employed when social conservatives tried to convince the courts that interracial bans treated everyone equal. You stop pushing the faulty legal logic that has failed so miserably and I'll stop pointing it out. Deal?

 

[mdk]

Two women may not be able to have a child naturally without technological help....BUT that is no basis for legal discrimination. See how simple that is?

It's not discrimination. Two women can get married and have all the benefits the government confers, as long as they get married to two men.
See how easy that is?

This isn't exactly a very compelling legal argument. Which it is why it is being laughed out of most courtrooms across the country.

Argumentum ad populum fallacy!
Rabbi rules!

While I find your delusions of grandeur comical, it in no way changes the fact that your position is failing miserably.

I point out your argument is a logical fallacy and Im the one failing? No, dont think so.

You're argument has failed miserably in almost every venue. You can pretend it is not discrimination until you are blue in the face. In the meantime, gays are getting married and your ilk gets consistently laughed out of almost every courthouse.