There goes Oregon....

Genetic mutations are not all deleterious to the human race. Homosexuality is because same sex couples cannot procreate with each other.

But I don't oppose sterile heterosexual couples getting married and I told you why. Apparently you cannot answer.

 

The "procreation promise" as I've seen it called has been struck down over and over again. And we've had countries where same-sex partnerships have been legally recognized by the government from as far back as 1986. The theory that same-sex marriage will do anything to birthrates is bunk, beyond belief. Try again.

If we are trying to fill a cup that is already full, then it will overflow. There is no obligation to procreate for anyone, heterosexual or homosexual. Saying that not procreating is "deleterious", but only when it comes to homosexuals, is the very definition of discriminatory. So again, I say, try again.

 

Mediocre attempt to dodge the post you are replying to:

So you could legitimately claim that GREEN EYES is a genetic mutation and forbid green eyed-people from getting married, right?

- - - Updated - - -

So the crux of your argument is that you support sterile heterosexual couples from marrying, but not fertile homosexual couples because the homosexual couples are homosexual.

 

Its far more likely that the conservative heterosexual couple would opt to abort the fetus, if they suspected that their offspring might turn out to be homosexual.

Secretly, discreetly of course- not in the same town. Not so anyone in church could find out.

 

I am saying that green eyes are not a deleterious mutation. There is no reason to forbid green eyed heterosexual men and women from getting married to each other.

That there in red makes no sense. However, I think you mean I support sterile heterosexual couples getting married and yes, I do and I told you why. A fertile homosexual individual would have to have heterosexual sex in order to create a child. A homosexual couple cannot make a child by having sex with each other ergo, homosexual couples are not equal to heterosexual couples. Get it now?

 

Procreation is more than a 'promise' it is a fact of life unless you are talking about same-sex coupling. If it were not, then the human race would cease to exist.

 

The procreation argument is dead in the water. Over. Finished. Invoking it is no more than an act of desperation just like trying to prove that gays are bad parents.

Marriage is now about much more than having children. It is much more about a status, about economics and about security. If the inability to reproduce is valid reason to deny marriage, should we allow ANYONE who cannot or chooses not to have children to marry? What about heterosexual couples who are past child barring age? What about a younger couple who may not be able to have children? Perhaps marriages should be automatically void after a certain time if no children are produced. If reproduction was the driving force, the compelling government interest in promoting traditional marriage, why are such policies not in place now?

Yet another question that I can’t get an answer to is: Given the fact that gay people do in fact have children in their care, and knowing that children have more legal and financial security when they have married parents, how do you justify denying marriage to those parents on the basis of their not having “reproduced” those children in a manner consistent with your sensibilities? They will argue that children need a “mommy and a daddy, but-putting aside the question of whether or not that is even true-the fact is that there will always be children who, for whatever reason do not live in a traditional mommy-daddy family and some will have gay parent. Failing to allow gay marriage will in no way ensure that more children will have a mom and a dad. It will only serve to ensure that fewer children will have two legal parents. To deny those children the benefits of married parents is to say that those children are less worthy, or you might say, worth less than other children. To deny them that security shows that any expressed concern for children is disingenuous at best. Not one of these people who claim to care so much about children has been able to answer that.

I will also point out that many heterosexual couples have children in their care with one or both parents not being biologically related. How is that different from gay couples who have a child where only one is the biological parent? Those two parents did not procreate together any more than that gay couple did. How is it different? It is not, yet I continually hear rumblings about how gay couples do not reproduce and therefor are of no benefit to society( The many benefits-beyond procreation- will be reserved for another time) At the same time, the anti-equality people are silent when it comes to straight couples in the exact same situation. It is a non sequitur because the conclusion-that gay couples should be denied benefits because they cannot reproduce- does not follow from its premises- that gay couples are fundamentally different in the way that they acquire children and that it should matter when it comes to extending rights to those who procreate as a couple but not to others. The argument is fallacious because there is a disconnection between the premise and the conclusion.

Lastly , I keep hearing about “responsible procreation” Opponents of marriage equality have long argued that reserving marriage for opposite-sex couples is important for promoting “responsible procreation” in society. However the “responsible procreation” argument is not only flawed, but also how it’s actually used to sugarcoat prejudice against homosexuality. It is wrought with logical fallacies, and bizarre assumptions. One of it’s strangest assumptions is that if same-sex couples are allowed to marry, then different-sex couples will have more children out of wedlock. I’m still waiting for an explanation as to how that will actually work. “Another strange variation of the responsible procreation claim is that if a heterosexual couple cannot conceive, marriage still somehow discourages them from cheating on one another. As the proponents of California’s Proposition 8 argued to the U.S. Supreme Court, marriage “decreases the likelihood that a fertile spouse will engage in sexual activity with a third party.” What I’m getting from this is not so much opposition to same sex marriage, but the view that it is just not necessary for gays to marry because there is no chance of having an unintended child. Alternately, I hear it said that same sex marriage will result in fewer heterosexuals having children thus endangering the perpetuation of the species. Quite frankly, I’m confused. Will gay marriage result in more or fewer children and why? I fail to see how what gay folks do can influence what others do with respect to marriage and children, and I have to doubt whether those promoting these ideas really do either.

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2013/1...gay-prejudice/
In any case seems to be another major source of anti-equality talking points. It seems to me that a truly rational discussion of marriage equality-one in which the focus is strictly on the compelling government at societal interest, for and against it, without all of the fluff is long over due\\

 

I have to give you this much, you're straight forward and unabashed in your bigotry. Nothing ambiguous here. I see that elsewhere you've railed about the abnormality of homosexuality. By what measure is it abnormal? I'll tell you what I think is abnormal....hatred. It must be hard being you, carrying around all that hate. . "It's likely that progressive heterosexual couples would choose to abort. " ? Where do you get this asinine clap trap from?

I, as part of a heterosexual couple would abort a child if I knew that he was going to be a bigot

 

The fact remains, same sex couples cannot have children by engaging in sex with each other therefore, their coupling is not equal to heterosexual coupling. How a society sees that is a different issue but denying the facts does no one any good.

 

I said homosexuality is aberrant. Aberrations can be normal in a population you know. I believe in calling it like it is and, if you consider that to be hatred then the hate is within you. I probably should not have said 'likely' I should have said IMO a progressive couple would abort a homosexual fetus. This is not based on any hatred on my part just observations that progressives are mostly not adverse to abortion and most heterosexual couples would not want a homosexual offspring IF THEY KNEW ahead of time.

 

So then you would agree that a heterosexual couple who cannot have children as a couple where both are the biological parent are UNEQUAL to another hetero couple who can, right? Can you justify discrimination, UNEQUAL treatment of the hetero couple who can't have children? Or, as I suspect, it's not really about the ability to have children, is it?

 

The human race's existence is not predicated upon marriage, nor does 'gay marriage' impact procreation, nor does marriage require procreation and procreation does not require marriage.

 

IMO a conservative couple would abort a homosexual fetus. This is not based upon any hatred on my part just observations that conservatives are mostly bigoted torwards abortion, and most conservatives would be horrified and do anything to prevent having a homosexual offspring- if they knew ahead of time. Discreetly though of course- so the folks in church didn't know about it.

Of course some would choose abortion if they were able to tell that their child would turn out to be a Democrat too.

IMO.

- - - Updated - - -

So you think that heterosexual couples who are infertile- or for whom one partner is infertile, their coupling is not equal to the coupling by heterosexuals who are fertile?

Or is it just when the lack of fertility pertains to same gender couples that you think that couple is not equal?

 

OK an aberration, a deviation from what is normal, expected, or usual. That would apply equally to you because most people do not harbor your hateful views. What's the point in calling gays an aberration in this context- in discussing a legal development- if not to disparage them? You likened homosexuality to a genetic mutation like Downs Syndrome. Yes, I see it as hatred. You seek to deny gays the rights that others enjoy. You consider them unequal...claiming that is based on their alleged inability to have children but I know better. It's damned sure not compassion. I too call it like I see it.

As far as abortion goes, being liberal and pro-choice does not mean that we are pro abortion a are ready to run to the abortion clinic for any old reason and you opinion that liberal couples would abort if they knew a child was going to be gay is moronic. If there is any reason why anyone would prefer a straight child it's because there are people like you in the world who would seek to make their life harder given the chance.

 

I wish I could give you more than a "like" for this, but they won't let me!!!!

I think there is something fishy with the way reputations are attributed! I haven't giving you a reputation for at least 3 months, and I ams still not able to give you one!

 

Yes but I don't think they should be prohibited from getting a marriage license because heterosexual coupling is preferred in a society and even a sterile heterosexual couple serves as a preferred example.

 

Which really goes to show that this has nothing to do with procreation, and has everything to do with a bias against homosexuals.

 

So, without equivocation, you are a bigot. You believe that we are inferior to you. Good. Glad we got out of the way.

Fortunately, the majority of Americans aren't bigots. And 80% of my generation is pro gay marriage. Enjoy being a fossil in just a few years

 

What do you have against Down's Syndrome people? Apparently you hate them. I do not.

Liberals generally support abortion. Parents typically want the most 'perfect' child they can have. Since homosexuality is aberrant in the human population, it seems natural they would not prefer that.

Nature thwarts aberrations because it typically causes entropy within the system however, an aberration that survives through generations could eventually be seen as non-aberrant and maybe even preferred by nature. Homosexuality is not at that point that's all. Calling people names is not going to change anything.

 

No...I believe that a homosexual couple is not equal to a heterosexual couple because they cannot procreate with each other. I never said they were inferior yet you project your hatred onto me and spew insults.

 

Nature is biased against homosexuals because they cannot procreate with each other. That is the reason there are so few. I am not personally biased against homosexuals.

 

I don't hate you. I pity the living crap out of you. The fact that you can't see that love is love makes me fear for those that love you. I hope that one day you can see that we're not asking a lot, but if not, you'll stay as a relic, a bad memory of a more simple minded time.

 

Since you advocate for marriage discrimination, it appears that your bias is against homosexuals.

Nature is not biased against homosexual- nature doesn't care. A homosexual couple cannot reproduce- with each other. That doesn't prevent them from propagating their genes, and Nature doesn't care whether people get married or not.

Your argument is an argument to discriminate against homosexuals in marriage- because they are homosexuals. Nothing less.

- - - Updated - - -

Wow.....I have to admit sometime I get amazed by people.

I am always shocked by people who rationalize why black people are not equal to white people, and I am amazed by when someone rationalizes why they think that homosexual couples are not equal to heterosexual couples.

 

You continue to state what you THINK I think, you call me a bigot, now you say I can't see that 'love is love' none of which I think or am. Like many pro-gay marriage types, you have a 'hair trigger' and fire insults at anyone pointing out the obvious or questioning you. This effectively shuts down all discussion so, apparently I am wasting my valuable time with you.

 

Conservatives generally oppose homosexuals. Parents typically want the most 'perfect child they can have. Since homosexuals are abhorrent to Conservatives, it seems natural that they would prefer to abort any fetus they believe would turn out to be gay.

Discreetly though of course- so the folks in church didn't know about it.

Of course some would choose abortion if they were able to tell that their child would turn out to be a Democrat too.