"Gathering Storm" Ad in Iowa

[Psudopod]

Please address why an infertile heterosexual couple who “cannot possibly under any circumstances” should be exempt form the discrimination you are trying to justify for same gendered couples
​

No because that’s not my point, my point is for you to discuss. The difference lies not in fertility but in the sex combination of the couple. That’s why I am not arguing about fertility or sexuality.
You naturally refuse to acknowledge that argument as it weakens yours.

But why is the sex combination important? Because, according to you, one combination can reproduce, and one cannot right? So it's the ability to reproduce that's at the heart of the issue right?

 

[Andreusz]

To Morcova,
Its not the same logic.
The same sex couple cant reproduce whether fertile or infertile whereas the male/female one will if fertile.

But the male/female one is not fertile. So what makes them different from the homosexual couple, if the problem with homosexual couples is infertility?

 

[brightmorningstar]

To David Brider,
My position isn't 'special pleading', whilst BigBadwlf's may well be. Special pleading is just a description of someones approach it fails to address the issue. If having show you what the Bible says which you dont acknowledge why bother asking anyone else to look anything else up?

the key here is ...
The same sex couple cant reproduce whether fertile or infertile whereas the male/female one will if fertile. So the issue is not fertility but the sex composition of the couple.

Everything is twisted by the gay argument and taken out of context or at a tangent.
Homosexual and hetersoexual are sexual attraction, not fertility issues. The key statement above shows the difference between the sex composition of couples, which addresses the sex composition of the couples. Fertility could be used as a difference between two couples but has no relevance to homosexual and heterosexual. This is why the gay argument uses it, to avoid having their argument weakended.
The key argument above shows that a significant difference exists bewteen a male/female and a same sex couple based on the sex composition. It makes no claim to the difference, namely reproduction, being the only reason for marriage. The gay argument uses that misrepresentation as well to to avoid having their argument weakended.

 

[Andreusz]

To Morcova,
Its not the same logic.
.

How true. Aristotelian logic =/= BMS logic.

 

[David Brider]

To David Brider,
My position isn't 'special pleading', whilst BigBadwlf's may well be. Special pleading is just a description of someones approach it fails to address the issue.

No, it's not. Like I said, look up what "special pleading" actually means.

The same sex couple cant reproduce whether fertile or infertile whereas the male/female one will if fertile. So the issue is not fertility but the sex composition of the couple.

So if the issue is the gender combination of the couple, why bring up whether they can reproduce or not? If the issue really is just the gender combination of the couple (and I believe that, for you, it is), then their ability to reproduce is totally irrelevant.

David.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To Andreusz,

But the male/female one is not fertile.

Some are, and some aren’t, why are you only thinking about ones that aren’t? Is it because you don’t want to?

So what makes them different from the homosexual couple, if the problem with homosexual couples is infertility?

The sex, as explained.
Would it help to spell it out?
Can the male/female couple reproduce if fertile- yes
Can the same sex couple reproduce if fertile – no
Big difference. There is no difference between any infertile couple.

I don’t mean to be patronising but can you understand the difference between yes and no?

 

[brightmorningstar]

To Psudopod,

But why is the sex combination important?

Because it shows a fundamental difference.

Because, according to you, one combination can reproduce, and one cannot right?

No. One cant, are you saying that two people of the same sex can reproduce as a couple?

So it's the ability to reproduce that's at the heart of the issue right?

No, that’s the fertility, heart of the issue is the sex combination because it cant reproduce.

 

[Andreusz]

I can, but I seriously suspect that you can't.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To David Brider,

No, it's not. Like I said, look up what "special pleading" actually means.

Why? You can look up what the Bible says about same sex relationships and not even recognise what it says or means so why should I bother looking in a dictionary?
The thread is about same sex relationships not what ‘special pleading’ means.

So if the issue is the gender combination of the couple, why bring up whether they can reproduce or not?

Because that’s why there is the issue.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To Andreusz,

I can, but I seriously suspect that you can't.

Well if I cant how did I?
So now you know that there is a big difference between the two couples based on their sex composition, but not one based on their fertilty, the same sex one can never reproduce so its not a difference based on fertility.

 

[Psudopod]

To Psudopod,
But why is the sex combination important?
Because it shows a fundamental difference.

And what is that fundamental difference? The ability to reproduce.

Because, according to you, one combination can reproduce, and one cannot right?
No. One cant, are you saying that two people of the same sex can reproduce as a couple?

One combination can (opposite sex) and one cannot (same sex).

So it's the ability to reproduce that's at the heart of the issue right?
No, that’s the fertility, heart of the issue is the sex combination because it cant reproduce.

You're getting yourself mixed up here. You can't compare apples and oranges and say the heart of the issue is apples.
If you are going to take two items and say one should be treated differently to the other, you need to say why, not simply that they are different.
Everyone recognises that a same sex couple is different from an opposite one, the question is whether that difference is enough to warrent different treatment.
And according to you, it is because one couple ( the same sex one) cannot reproduce and thus reproduction is the heart of your argument.

 

[David Brider]

No, it's not. Like I said, look up what "special pleading" actually means.

Why?

Because if you familiarised yourself with what the word means, you might realise that your own arguments include a great degree of special pleading.

Roughly speaking, it goes like this:

A: Same-gender couples shouldn't be allowed to marry, because they can't reproduce sexually.

B: Infertile couples can't reproduce either, so are you saying they shouldn't be allowed to marry?

A: No, because same-gender couples are a special case.

I'm paraphrasing, obviously, but that's the gist of your arguments, and it's a prime example of special pleading.

So if the issue is the gender combination of the couple, why bring up whether they can reproduce or not?

Because that’s why there is the issue.

So the issue is ability to reproduce.

Okay then, show a little consistency - campaign for infertile opposite-gender couples to be denied the right to marry.

David.

 

[Andreusz]

To Brightmorningstar

Okay then, show a little consistency - campaign for infertile opposite-gender couples to be denied the right to marry.
.

Or admit that the real reason you oppose gay marriage is that you don't like homosexuals.

 

[KCKID]

To Brightmorningstar

Or admit that the real reason you oppose gay marriage is that you don't like homosexuals.

Bingo! Few people will use the Bible to condemn homosexuals unless they FIRST dislike homosexuals. I would have more respect for those who would admit to this instead of constantly using 'God' to do it for them.

 

[b&wpac4]

Bingo! Few people will use the Bible to condemn homosexuals unless they FIRST dislike homosexuals. I would have more respect for those who would admit to this instead of constantly using 'God' to do it for them.

From Isaiah 1:

" Take your evil deeds
out of my sight!
Stop doing wrong,
learn to do right!
Seek justice,
encourage the oppressed.
Defend the cause of the fatherless,
plead the case of the widow."


Oddly, you'll notice that learning to do right doesn't say "Oppose the homosexuals" or "Preserve marriage, as defined by the right-wingers".

 

[Shane Roach]

And what is that fundamental difference? The ability to reproduce.


One combination can (opposite sex) and one cannot (same sex).

You're getting yourself mixed up here. You can't compare apples and oranges and say the heart of the issue is apples.
If you are going to take two items and say one should be treated differently to the other, you need to say why, not simply that they are different.
Everyone recognises that a same sex couple is different from an opposite one, the question is whether that difference is enough to warrent different treatment.
And according to you, it is because one couple ( the same sex one) cannot reproduce and thus reproduction is the heart of your argument.

Your mischaracterizing the argument, then dismissing it. What you are saying is wrong, no one is arguing.

A. Marriage law is about regulating relations between men and women, and exists because of issues of child bearing and rearing.
B. Gays cannot have children.
C. Gays should not be included in marriage law because there exist no issues of child bearing and rearing with them to regulate.

You are snipping little exceptions to the rule out of the air and arguing that they prove that family law has nothing to do with families, basically. It is demonstrably false. Therefore, you have not made any case whatsoever that it is necessary to include gays in regulations that have nothing to do with their relationships.

History has shown that mucking around with family law has indeed caused a lot of trouble. We now know that the breakdown in the family has caused a lot of trouble among our poor and inner city communities. So it is untrue to argue that changes in family law cannot harm anyone. They already have.

I have no way of knowing who you were quoting, but they may well have a slightly different argument. Still, to charcterize the argument I see there the way you have is simply to miss the point, and it is a little shocking to be on about this topic for weeks on and and see the same attempt being made to mischaracterize what is in actuality a very simple to understand argument.

 

[Shane Roach]

The argument that people are opposing gay marriage because of an untoward motive is simply a personal attack, and unworthy of a serious discussion. If you cannot do better, it makes folks wonder why you are arguing at all.

This accusation rears its head repeatedly specifically on this topic, and is inappropriate.

 

[Shane Roach]

Everything is twisted by the gay argument and taken out of context or at a tangent.
Homosexual and hetersoexual are sexual attraction, not fertility issues. The key statement above shows the difference between the sex composition of couples, which addresses the sex composition of the couples. Fertility could be used as a difference between two couples but has no relevance to homosexual and heterosexual. This is why the gay argument uses it, to avoid having their argument weakended.
The key argument above shows that a significant difference exists bewteen a male/female and a same sex couple based on the sex composition. It makes no claim to the difference, namely reproduction, being the only reason for marriage. The gay argument uses that misrepresentation as well to to avoid having their argument weakended.

Exactly.

 

[Archer93]

Your mischaracterizing the argument, then dismissing it. What you are saying is wrong, no one is arguing.

A. Marriage law is about regulating relations between men and women,

True

and exists because of issues of child bearing and rearing.

Kind of true. A lot of marriage laws relate to children, but not all of the laws that relate to children are part of marriage laws.

B. Gays cannot have children.

False. A gay couple cannot procreate with each other, but there are other options available- sperm donation, surrogacy.

C. Gays should not be included in marriage law because there exist no issues of child bearing and rearing with them to regulate.

False. Gay couples can and do have families that involve dependent children. You claim that marriage is for regulating relationships and exists because of issues relating to children- gay couples have these issues as well. Therefore, to increase sociatal stability, marriage should be available for same-sex couples.

You are snipping little exceptions to the rule out of the air and arguing that they prove that family law has nothing to do with families, basically. It is demonstrably false. Therefore, you have not made any case whatsoever that it is necessary to include gays in regulations that have nothing to do with their relationships.

History has shown that mucking around with family law has indeed caused a lot of trouble. We now know that the breakdown in the family has caused a lot of trouble among our poor and inner city communities. So it is untrue to argue that changes in family law cannot harm anyone. They already have.

I have no way of knowing who you were quoting, but they may well have a slightly different argument. Still, to charcterize the argument I see there the way you have is simply to miss the point, and it is a little shocking to be on about this topic for weeks on and and see the same attempt being made to mischaracterize what is in actuality a very simple to understand argument.

I haven't seen anyone argue that family law has nothing to do with families. That would be illogical in the extreme.
People are saying that all aspects of laws relating to families should be extended to all families, however they are formed.

And your "little exceptions" are other people's real lives. Since you have already stated that you do not believe that gay marriage causes the breakdown of families, what reason do you have for treating tens of thousands of perfectly functional families so badly?

 

[Skaloop]

Your mischaracterizing the argument, then dismissing it. What you are saying is wrong, no one is arguing.

A. Marriage law is about regulating relations between men and women, and exists because of issues of child bearing and rearing.
B. Gays cannot have children.
C. Gays should not be included in marriage law because there exist no issues of child bearing and rearing with them to regulate.

But there do, through adoption or through biological children from previous relationships while in the closet or through surrogacy or through sperm donors. Plenty of gay couples have kids that would be served well by the same marriage laws you mention.