"Gathering Storm" Ad in Iowa

[OllieFranz]

Is there a reason for a husband to send his little spermies on a fruitless trip in his infertile wife?

Personally I agree with you and with the thrust of the question. I'm just trying to make sense of BMS's claims, including the distinction he makes between "dysfunction" and "malfunction," and his insistence that he is not talking about fertility. Not that there is much to his argument either way.

 

[Shane Roach]

Originally Posted by Skaloop

If that's not the line of discussion, what is the line of discussion? And why bring up promiscuity and mental health at all?
​

BigBadWlf has made multiple claims that any reservations at all against gay marriage are motivated by bigotry. To bolster his claims he has consistently argued that there is massive evidence that there is nothing at all even demonstrably unusual about homosexuality, and has posted references to studies to back those claims.

I took the extra step of actually getting my hands on the studies, and none of them so far say what he claims. In fact some of them state the exact opposite.

The one study I have cited to back claims of my own is one about the Scandinavian countries that illustrates a relationship between the gay marriage, or union, agenda and family breakdown in general. It goes hand in hand with my assertion that gays should not be allowed to marry for the simple reason that marriage is not solely or even mostly about people loving one another and having sex. Marriage has existed for all of recorded history as a tool to regulate sex in order to maintain and enforce lines of responsibility concerning care of women and children on the one hand, and enforcing society's idea of whatever it is women and children owe men on the other.

As old fashioned as this may seem, even today we can see that women have to make significant sacrifices in career and risk in health to have children, and usually benefit from the added financial stability a man can provide. What we no longer have is any idea whatsoever of anything owed the man in return, even so much as to refrain from cheating. On the flip side, some women take the traditional route depending on marriage law to defend their interests only to find that under no fault divorce, the sacrifices they made in not developing an outside profession leave them devastatingly vulnerable if the man chooses to move on.

None of these issues exist in any form with gays. Every aspect of gays getting together, adopting, sharing expenses, and etc, is utterly open to negotiation without regard to gender, whereas marriage was and is still to this day specifically designed (albeit badly, currently) to deal with inherent differences in men and women.

To combine the two sorts of legal relationships into one is to essentially destroy one and replace it with the other.

This is not good public policy. Marriage laws do need some serious updating. They do not, however, need to be done away with or conflated with any relationship anyone might have where people cohabit had have sex. These are simply not the same types of relationships and need to be regulated differently.


http://www.christianforums.com/t7358406-37/#post51432604

 

[Shane Roach]

Simply put, people should be allowed to make useful distinctions in law.

 

[Wyzaard]

Marriage has existed for all of recorded history as a tool to regulate sex in order to maintain and enforce lines of responsibility concerning care of women and children on the one hand, and enforcing society's idea of whatever it is women and children owe men on the other.

Again, the Supreme Court disagrees with this, as per Griswold and other cases that deal with marriage and procreation, which place such matters squarely in the hands of the couple, NOT the state.

As for the sexism, I will ignore that for now.

 

[Veyrlian]

Originally Posted by Skaloop

If that's not the line of discussion, what is the line of discussion? And why bring up promiscuity and mental health at all?
​

BigBadWlf has made multiple claims that any reservations at all against gay marriage are motivated by bigotry. To bolster his claims he has consistently argued that there is massive evidence that there is nothing at all even demonstrably unusual about homosexuality, and has posted references to studies to back those claims.

I took the extra step of actually getting my hands on the studies, and none of them so far say what he claims. In fact some of them state the exact opposite.

The one study I have cited to back claims of my own is one about the Scandinavian countries that illustrates a relationship between the gay marriage, or union, agenda and family breakdown in general. It goes hand in hand with my assertion that gays should not be allowed to marry for the simple reason that marriage is not solely or even mostly about people loving one another and having sex. Marriage has existed for all of recorded history as a tool to regulate sex in order to maintain and enforce lines of responsibility concerning care of women and children on the one hand, and enforcing society's idea of whatever it is women and children owe men on the other.

As old fashioned as this may seem, even today we can see that women have to make significant sacrifices in career and risk in health to have children, and usually benefit from the added financial stability a man can provide. What we no longer have is any idea whatsoever of anything owed the man in return, even so much as to refrain from cheating. On the flip side, some women take the traditional route depending on marriage law to defend their interests only to find that under no fault divorce, the sacrifices they made in not developing an outside profession leave them devastatingly vulnerable if the man chooses to move on.

None of these issues exist in any form with gays. Every aspect of gays getting together, adopting, sharing expenses, and etc, is utterly open to negotiation without regard to gender, whereas marriage was and is still to this day specifically designed (albeit badly, currently) to deal with inherent differences in men and women.

To combine the two sorts of legal relationships into one is to essentially destroy one and replace it with the other.

This is not good public policy. Marriage laws do need some serious updating. They do not, however, need to be done away with or conflated with any relationship anyone might have where people cohabit had have sex. These are simply not the same types of relationships and need to be regulated differently.


http://www.christianforums.com/t7358406-37/#post51432604

For so long I've tried to make sense of this regulation argument. Maybe I get it now:
Women and children need protection and care, which is why the whole institution of marriage is established. Because they still need that protection today (and can't get it anywhere else?), gays shouldn't be allowed to marry because they are not like women and children and the laws can't abide?

 

[Andreusz]

Second bump (to BMS):

" I have great difficulty understanding what you are trying to say. Would the following be an acceptable representation of your point of view?

'Same-sex couples should not be allowed to marry, because they cannot reproduce, and their inability to reproduce comes about because they are of the same sex.
Opposite-sex couples where one or both members are infertile may, howwever, marry, even though they cannot reproduce, because their inability to reproduce is not caused by their sex.'"

 

[brightmorningstar]

To Beechy,

Why would you want to give infertile opposite sex couples the same status as fertile opposite sex couples when they can't reproduce which is the natural result of sexual intercourse between the male and female sexes of the species?

because only male/female can reproduce so the issue is the composition of the sex not the fertility.
I you wish to decide whether couples can marry based on fertility then do so, that’s not my criteria, but of course it would rule out all same sex couples.

Human beings require both sexes to procreate.

That’s my point.

But two people of any sex can raise a child and create a family that is developed through something other than procreation with one another.

That’s irrelevant as humans have been raised by animals.

What do you mean?

I mean what did you mean when you said

It is one of many differences

Woah. Why should the one black kid in the classroom be treated the same as the other white kids?

They should be treated the same, but the white kid shouldn’t be treated as a black kid.

Why should the Muslim family down the street be treated the same as the Christian families on the rest of the block?

Well they should be treated the same as families but the Muslim family shouldn’t be treated as a Christian familiy.
But the question was for your not me, why should a same sex couple be treated as a Male/female one when they aren’t.

 

[cgcsb]

To Beechy,
because only male/female can reproduce so the issue is the composition of the sex not the fertility.
I you wish to decide whether couples can marry based on fertility then do so, that’s not my criteria, but of course it would rule out all same sex couples.

Are you familliar with the nuclear extration/replacement same sex reproduction technique? Baisically, it is now physically possible for two males to have offspring to which both parties are the genetic father. Although, the technique has not been brought to human trials as of yet. There are already lab rats. One in Japan, and one in Brazil that have two genetic fathers.

I will describe the technique to the best of my ability as follows:
A woman's egg (any woman at all) is taken and has it's gentic materialsucked out with a syringe. A man's x chromosome sperm (a man produces two types of sperm, some of which are little potential baby girls, X chromosome, and some that are little potential baby boys, Y Chromosome.) is taken and injected into the hollowed out egg.

Then the egg is starved of nutrients for 24 hours so that it will go into a sort of Zygote sleep. It is re awakened with a tiny jolt of electricity at which point it should behave as if a normal egg, and nothing happened. Then the egg is fertalized by that guy's husband/partner's sperm and is implanted in a surrogate mother's womb for 9 months.

My point is that an average same sex couple now has more potential to reproduce genteically than most infertile opposite sex couples.

So since composition of sex is no longer an issue, tehnically speaking, how do some people posting here propose to justify discrimination?

Can't wait to hear to hear the latest excuses.

why should a same sex couple be treated as a Male/female one when they aren’t.

the same reason why a black person should be treated the same as a white person when they clearly are not white. If they are not treated the same by the law, that is discrimination.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To cgcsb,

Are you familliar with the nuclear extration/replacement same sex reproduction technique?

No.

I will describe the technique to the best of my ability as follows:

Thanks

A woman's egg (any woman at all) is taken and has it's gentic materialsucked out with a syringe. A man's x chromosome sperm (a man produces two types of sperm, some of which are little potential baby girls, X chromosome, and some that are little potential baby boys, Y Chromosome.) is taken and injected into the hollowed out egg.

Let me stop you there. All you have done is prove my point, it takes a man and a woman to provide the egg and sperm.
Yet amazingly you have attributed it to a same sex reproduction technique, when in fact it is male/female.

My point is that an average same sex couple now has more potential to reproduce genteically than most infertile opposite sex couples.

as I have pointed out no they dont.they have zero as its not same sex.

So since composition of sex is no longer an issue, tehnically speaking, how do some people posting here propose to justify discrimination?

As your point is fundamentally complete error maybe the discrimination is your view.

Can't wait to hear to hear the latest excuses.

but will you understand them?

the same reason why a black person should be treated the same as a white person when they clearly are not white.

But you wouldn’t tell a white caucasion person they were black negro would you? So how are they the same?

 

[b&wpac4]

But you wouldn’t tell a white caucasion person they were black negro would you? So how are they the same?

Since I'm not completely up to the cultural standards of the UK, is that phrase acceptable there? Where I grew up, using that phrase would get you beaten, were you white.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To b&wpac4,
Hasnt bothered my black friends. You have obviously noticed the difference. Thanks for acknowledging my point.

 

[b&wpac4]

To b&wpac4,
Hasnt bothered my black friends. You have obviously noticed the difference. Thanks for acknowledging my point.

I was just curious. There are many cultural differences, so it helps to have an understanding.

 

[Shane Roach]

For so long I've tried to make sense of this regulation argument. Maybe I get it now:
Women and children need protection and care, which is why the whole institution of marriage is established. Because they still need that protection today (and can't get it anywhere else?), gays shouldn't be allowed to marry because they are not like women and children and the laws can't abide?

Well, you left out the man in the equation, but generally yes. It is only fair, in my opinion, if we are going to hold men accountable (and I think we should) for their children and the women who have to go through so much to bring children into this world, that he ought to be allowed a defining role in the woman and the child's life in return.

The point is, this relationships is unique to men and women.

I think you get it in general. I just am not sure why it takes this long to see.

 

[beechy]

To Beechy,
because only male/female can reproduce so the issue is the composition of the sex not the fertility.
I you wish to decide whether couples can marry based on fertility then do so, that’s not my criteria, but of course it would rule out all same sex couples.

If the reason gay people should not be allowed to marry is because marriage should only be permitted for couples who can reproduce children together, then the ability to reproduce children together should be a prerequisite for marriage. But it is not. And no one has ever claimed that it should be.

That’s my point.

That’s irrelevant as humans have been raised by animals.

Um, animals can procreate also.

They should be treated the same, but the white kid shouldn’t be treated as a black kid. Well they should be treated the same as families but the Muslim family shouldn’t be treated as a Christian familiy.

But the question was for your not me, why should a same sex couple be treated as a Male/female one when they aren’t.

Because the difference between the couples (i.e., gender composition) is not a meaningful difference that should warrant denying them the right to marry. Just as skin color shouldn't be a meaningful difference that should warrant you treating a black kid different than the white kids in class.

 

[cgcsb]

To cgcsb,

Let me stop you there. All you have done is prove my point, it takes a man and a woman to provide the egg and sperm.
Yet amazingly you have attributed it to a same sex reproduction technique, when in fact it is male/female.


but will you understand them?

I think it's you who doesn't undersand. Although the carcas of a woman's egg is used in the process, the nucleus(the genetic material that makes it different or unique to every other egg in the world) is discarded. The two males contribute the genetic material in equal proportions, 23 chromosomes each, therefore they are the biological parents of the offspring. And since they are both the biological parents and they are both male, it is infact not male/female

But you wouldn’t tell a white caucasion person they were black negro would you? So how are they the same?

No, I wouldn't because why would the law refer to any one's race aside from hate crime legislation. The law shouldn't view anyone as black or white. Keep in mind, we're talking about the law of the land on this thread

 

[Braunwyn]

Originally Posted by Skaloop

If that's not the line of discussion, what is the line of discussion? And why bring up promiscuity and mental health at all?

​

BigBadWlf has made multiple claims that any reservations at all against gay marriage are motivated by bigotry. To bolster his claims he has consistently argued that there is massive evidence that there is nothing at all even demonstrably unusual about homosexuality, and has posted references to studies to back those claims.

I took the extra step of actually getting my hands on the studies, and none of them so far say what he claims. In fact some of them state the exact opposite.

The one study I have cited to back claims of my own is one about the Scandinavian countries that illustrates a relationship between the gay marriage, or union, agenda and family breakdown in general. It goes hand in hand with my assertion that gays should not be allowed to marry for the simple reason that marriage is not solely or even mostly about people loving one another and having sex. Marriage has existed for all of recorded history as a tool to regulate sex in order to maintain and enforce lines of responsibility concerning care of women and children on the one hand, and enforcing society's idea of whatever it is women and children owe men on the other.

As old fashioned as this may seem, even today we can see that women have to make significant sacrifices in career and risk in health to have children, and usually benefit from the added financial stability a man can provide. What we no longer have is any idea whatsoever of anything owed the man in return, even so much as to refrain from cheating. On the flip side, some women take the traditional route depending on marriage law to defend their interests only to find that under no fault divorce, the sacrifices they made in not developing an outside profession leave them devastatingly vulnerable if the man chooses to move on.

None of these issues exist in any form with gays. Every aspect of gays getting together, adopting, sharing expenses, and etc, is utterly open to negotiation without regard to gender, whereas marriage was and is still to this day specifically designed (albeit badly, currently) to deal with inherent differences in men and women.

I have a pair of friends that are married. They are lesbians and they have children. Only one of them has carried the children. So, this isn't really very different than what's found in a heterosexual marriage with the woman having the responsibility of childbirth.

As far as what's owed to men...sigh. Times have changed, Shane. For some of us at least. There are marriages that don't include owing this or that to partners. Do horrible marriages that require legal protection exist? Sure. But, I don't see why all members of society must be subject to the consequences resulting from those that don't always make the best decisions. The lowest common denomator warrants protection but what it is these folks do is no longer a large defining component of marriage in 2009, imo.

 

[mpok1519]

why is legal marriage about anything besides love?

 

[brightmorningstar]

To cgcsb,

I think it's you who doesn't undersand.

And I think it you. I believe the whole gay thinking is merely outside reality, sure I understand about chromosomes but you once again mention male and female, man and woman.
Perhaps you cant see the wood for the trees.

No, I wouldn't because why would the law refer to any one's race aside from hate crime legislation. The law shouldn't view anyone as black or white. Keep in mind, we're talking about the law of the land on this thread

I’m not, I am talking about the difference.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To Beechy,

If the reason gay people should not be allowed to marry is because marriage should only be permitted for couples who can reproduce children together, then the ability to reproduce children together should be a prerequisite for marriage.

Your statement is not quite right. The people you consider ‘gay’ can get married, its just that they don’t want to as their sexual desires are for same sex. Furthermore the ability to reproduce is the difference, I wouldn’t say it was a pre-requisite. If you think it should be a prerequisite then under your view same sex couples wouldn’t get married anyway so I don’t see what your point is.

Um, animals can procreate also.

So would you consider animals as human parents? Sorry Again I don’t really see how your point is credible.

Because the difference between the couples (i.e., gender composition) is not a meaningful difference that should warrant denying them the right to marry.

But I am contesting it is, its crucial and not to recognise it is dangerously a move away from recognising reality.

Just as skin color shouldn't be a meaningful difference that should warrant you treating a black kid different than the white kids in class.

I don’t warrant treating them any different, except I wouldn’t want to treat them both as white or both as black, I would recognise the difference.
You are comparing apples and oranges if one of the kids formed a same sex sexual relationship and the other a normal one with the opposite sex I would recognise the difference.

 

[IzzyPop]

I don’t warrant treating them any different, except I wouldn’t want to treat them both as white or both as black, I would recognise the difference.

That sentence has two conflicting ideas. If the part before the comma is true, then it doesn't matter if you treat them both as black or both as white because you would be treating them the same. If the second part is true, then you do treat them differently based on color. Or am I missing something?