Breaking News: Same-Sex Marriage Ban Overturned in California - Page 2 - DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate

**BorBitExatini** · 08-09-2010, 12:41 AM

Marriage recognizes differences between men and women and recognizes that only when these dispirate entities are cojugally united can offspring be produced. Somebody sure wasn't paying attention in health class.

Breaking News! Teen Girls of the World, Listen Up: Despite any vicious rumors to the contrary you may have heard, you can't get pregnant unless you're married. Have fun, kids!

Marriage is a social construct that has nothing to do with "natural" reproduction. That is a fact.

PS. Gay people can and do reproduce. Shocking, I know.

**funnyPasds** · 08-09-2010, 12:49 AM

Reproduction has nothing to do with the issues facing homosexuality or gay marriage. Should a straigh couple that weds and doesn't want children have their union nullified? Apparently, the way I interperet your post Paul, it should, as this is obviously a defective reproductive practice.

What about a hetero couple that can't have children, but want to? This is literally defective. Should they be forced to separate? Again, by your words, I can only presume that's your stance.

You've defined marriage by a religious view Paul, that's not supposed to be legal in this country. It imposes on other beliefs, and without any reason other than your own belief. Further, you've just alienated all these loving, hetero couples I just mentioned above.

My original post, the one you can't understand, was about one of the wrong decisions our Supreme Court made. Or do you agree that slaves were rightful property, and not people of their own free will? I was refering to court decisions that take away people's inalienable rights as humans, and it has nothing to do with reproduction. If they are so inclined, they can adopt, as other hetero couples choose to do instead of procreating on their own. But again, you'd apparently want to nullify their marriages too.

**xkQCaS4w** · 08-09-2010, 12:52 AM

Marriage is first and foremost about natural reproduction and the offspring produce.

I truly love this canard. Truly.

The first and foremost thing that marriage represents is the desire of two adulthoods to signify their desire to be with each other. It's about love, not reproduction.

**ovenco** · 08-09-2010, 12:53 AM

Reproduction has nothing to do with the issues facing homosexuality or gay marriage. Should a straigh couple that weds and doesn't want children have their union nullified? Apparently, the way I interperet your post Paul, it should, as this is obviously a defective reproductive practice.

What about a hetero couple that can't have children, but want to? This is literally defective. Should they be forced to separate? Again, by your words, I can only presume that's your stance.

Yes, if we take Incident at his word there should be a fertility test for both parties before a marriage license is issued. Of course all his silliness detracts from the real issue, which is that he is a homophobe.

**toreesi** · 08-09-2010, 01:07 AM

Adult? Don't forget kids were betrothed or sometimes married at pathetically young ages in Judeo-Christian cultures. Even that last Texas cult to be shut down, so past-tense is optional. But hey, that's okay as long as they're straight.

**HomePageOEMfreeSOFTWARE** · 08-09-2010, 01:40 AM

I truly love this canard. Truly.

The first and foremost thing that marriage represents is the desire of two adulthoods to signify their desire to be with each other. It's about love, not reproduction.

That is your view and has nothing to do with historical fact. Sure there were many people who get married because of the notion of romantic love, but that is not why there is the institurion of marriage. The institution of marriage reflects societies need to recognize the offspring of conjugal unions.

**RSAccountssy** · 08-09-2010, 01:46 AM

Which exclusive religous, not cultural view am I basing my opinion on. Frankly, I'm basing it on a scientific view.

BTW -- If you want to ban sterile people from getting married so there is "marriage equality" with homosexuals, even though they their sexual practices are completely compatible with natural reproduction that is your issue not mine.

**onlyfun_biziness** · 08-09-2010, 01:52 AM

....
PS. Gay people can and do reproduce. Shocking, I know.

Document the myriad of examples of natural reproduction resulting from homosexual sex?

**rammossyAcron** · 08-09-2010, 01:56 AM

That is your view and has nothing to do with historical fact. Sure there were many people who get married because of the notion of romantic love, but that is not why there is the institurion of marriage. The institution of marriage reflects societies need to recognize the offspring of conjugal unions.

Ever been married, Paul?

**engacenus** · 08-09-2010, 01:57 AM

Strictly speaking, Paul is right for once, in that homosexual acts are not compatible with natural reproduction.

Of course, neither are anal and oral sex between heterosexual partners, nor is sex between people using contraception. So anyone who engages in any of those practices should also, by logical extension, be denied the right to marry according to his view.

**sportsbettinge** · 08-09-2010, 01:58 AM

Ever been married, Paul?

As if.

**optormtix** · 08-09-2010, 01:59 AM

BTW -- If you want to ban sterile people from getting married so there is "marriage equality" with homosexuals, even though they their sexual practices are completely compatible with natural reproduction that is your issue not mine.

Stop being a coward. State your position.

Is the union of two sterile persons a marriage in your view, when they know full well going into the marriage that they cannot reproduce?

Is the union of two persons who have decided prior to marriage, that they will not reproduce despite being fully physically capable of doing so, a marriage in your opinion?

No hiding. State your honest beliefs.

**DialOne** · 08-09-2010, 02:03 AM

Frankly, I'm basing it on a scientific view. No, frankly, you are not. Married people are not more physically capable of reproducing than unmarried people. Getting married has zero, nothing, nada to do with science and everything to do with cultural mores. There is no scientific basis whatsoever to your claim. You simply are a bigot who tried and failed to justify his bigotry under the guise of science.

**paulaglober** · 08-09-2010, 02:04 AM

Document the myriad of examples of natural reproduction resulting from homosexual sex?

I didn't say that homosexual sex could result in reproduction. I said that gay people can reproduce.

**Dildos** · 08-09-2010, 02:04 AM

No, frankly, you are not. Married people are not more physically capable of reproducing than unmarried people. Getting married has zero, nothing, nada to do with science and everything to do with cultural mores. There is no scientific basis whatsoever to your claim. You simply are a bigot who tried and failed to justify his bigotry under the guise of science.

Well said, Leslie!

**marcusdexz** · 08-09-2010, 02:05 AM

I didn't say that homosexual sex could result in reproduction. I said that gay people can reproduce.

What, you were expecting reading comprehension from him?

**Zdmlscid** · 08-09-2010, 02:08 AM

What, you were expecting reading comprehension from him?

Good Lord, no. I'm not that idealistic. And as you'll see with the post below, our boy once again lived down to expectations.

**ferelrossi** · 08-09-2010, 02:10 AM

Oops sorry repeat most reulting from having two windows open. Sorry.

**inilbowly** · 08-09-2010, 02:14 AM

Document the myriad of examples of natural reproduction resulting from homosexual sex?

Why do I suddenly feel like a character in Groundhog Day?

**orbidewa** · 08-09-2010, 02:15 AM

Why do I suddenly feel like a character in Groundhog Day?

"Babe....I got you babe...I got you babe."

08-09-2010, 12:41 AM	#21
BorBitExatini Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 356 Senior Member	Marriage recognizes differences between men and women and recognizes that only when these dispirate entities are cojugally united can offspring be produced. Somebody sure wasn't paying attention in health class. Breaking News! Teen Girls of the World, Listen Up: Despite any vicious rumors to the contrary you may have heard, you can't get pregnant unless you're married. Have fun, kids! Marriage is a social construct that has nothing to do with "natural" reproduction. That is a fact. PS. Gay people can and do reproduce. Shocking, I know. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

08-09-2010, 12:49 AM	#22
funnyPasds Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 425 Senior Member	Reproduction has nothing to do with the issues facing homosexuality or gay marriage. Should a straigh couple that weds and doesn't want children have their union nullified? Apparently, the way I interperet your post Paul, it should, as this is obviously a defective reproductive practice. What about a hetero couple that can't have children, but want to? This is literally defective. Should they be forced to separate? Again, by your words, I can only presume that's your stance. You've defined marriage by a religious view Paul, that's not supposed to be legal in this country. It imposes on other beliefs, and without any reason other than your own belief. Further, you've just alienated all these loving, hetero couples I just mentioned above. My original post, the one you can't understand, was about one of the wrong decisions our Supreme Court made. Or do you agree that slaves were rightful property, and not people of their own free will? I was refering to court decisions that take away people's inalienable rights as humans, and it has nothing to do with reproduction. If they are so inclined, they can adopt, as other hetero couples choose to do instead of procreating on their own. But again, you'd apparently want to nullify their marriages too. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

08-09-2010, 12:52 AM	#23
xkQCaS4w Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 468 Senior Member	Marriage is first and foremost about natural reproduction and the offspring produce. I truly love this canard. Truly. The first and foremost thing that marriage represents is the desire of two adulthoods to signify their desire to be with each other. It's about love, not reproduction. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

08-09-2010, 12:53 AM	#24
ovenco Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 507 Senior Member	Reproduction has nothing to do with the issues facing homosexuality or gay marriage. Should a straigh couple that weds and doesn't want children have their union nullified? Apparently, the way I interperet your post Paul, it should, as this is obviously a defective reproductive practice. What about a hetero couple that can't have children, but want to? This is literally defective. Should they be forced to separate? Again, by your words, I can only presume that's your stance. Yes, if we take Incident at his word there should be a fertility test for both parties before a marriage license is issued. Of course all his silliness detracts from the real issue, which is that he is a homophobe. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

08-09-2010, 01:07 AM	#25
toreesi Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 595 Senior Member	Adult? Don't forget kids were betrothed or sometimes married at pathetically young ages in Judeo-Christian cultures. Even that last Texas cult to be shut down, so past-tense is optional. But hey, that's okay as long as they're straight. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

08-09-2010, 01:40 AM	#26
HomePageOEMfreeSOFTWARE Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 516 Senior Member	I truly love this canard. Truly. The first and foremost thing that marriage represents is the desire of two adulthoods to signify their desire to be with each other. It's about love, not reproduction. That is your view and has nothing to do with historical fact. Sure there were many people who get married because of the notion of romantic love, but that is not why there is the institurion of marriage. The institution of marriage reflects societies need to recognize the offspring of conjugal unions. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

08-09-2010, 01:46 AM	#27
RSAccountssy Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 363 Senior Member	Which exclusive religous, not cultural view am I basing my opinion on. Frankly, I'm basing it on a scientific view. BTW -- If you want to ban sterile people from getting married so there is "marriage equality" with homosexuals, even though they their sexual practices are completely compatible with natural reproduction that is your issue not mine. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

08-09-2010, 01:52 AM	#28
onlyfun_biziness Join Date Nov 2005 Posts 558 Senior Member	.... PS. Gay people can and do reproduce. Shocking, I know. Document the myriad of examples of natural reproduction resulting from homosexual sex? Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

08-09-2010, 01:56 AM	#29
rammossyAcron Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 370 Senior Member	That is your view and has nothing to do with historical fact. Sure there were many people who get married because of the notion of romantic love, but that is not why there is the institurion of marriage. The institution of marriage reflects societies need to recognize the offspring of conjugal unions. Ever been married, Paul? Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

08-09-2010, 01:57 AM	#30
engacenus Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 494 Senior Member	Strictly speaking, Paul is right for once, in that homosexual acts are not compatible with natural reproduction. Of course, neither are anal and oral sex between heterosexual partners, nor is sex between people using contraception. So anyone who engages in any of those practices should also, by logical extension, be denied the right to marry according to his view. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

08-09-2010, 01:58 AM	#31
sportsbettinge Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 415 Senior Member	Ever been married, Paul? As if. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

08-09-2010, 01:59 AM	#32
optormtix Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 485 Senior Member	BTW -- If you want to ban sterile people from getting married so there is "marriage equality" with homosexuals, even though they their sexual practices are completely compatible with natural reproduction that is your issue not mine. Stop being a coward. State your position. Is the union of two sterile persons a marriage in your view, when they know full well going into the marriage that they cannot reproduce? Is the union of two persons who have decided prior to marriage, that they will not reproduce despite being fully physically capable of doing so, a marriage in your opinion? No hiding. State your honest beliefs. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

08-09-2010, 02:03 AM	#33
DialOne Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 454 Senior Member	Frankly, I'm basing it on a scientific view. No, frankly, you are not. Married people are not more physically capable of reproducing than unmarried people. Getting married has zero, nothing, nada to do with science and everything to do with cultural mores. There is no scientific basis whatsoever to your claim. You simply are a bigot who tried and failed to justify his bigotry under the guise of science. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

08-09-2010, 02:04 AM	#34
paulaglober Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 357 Senior Member	Document the myriad of examples of natural reproduction resulting from homosexual sex? I didn't say that homosexual sex could result in reproduction. I said that gay people can reproduce. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

08-09-2010, 02:04 AM	#35
Dildos Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 458 Senior Member	No, frankly, you are not. Married people are not more physically capable of reproducing than unmarried people. Getting married has zero, nothing, nada to do with science and everything to do with cultural mores. There is no scientific basis whatsoever to your claim. You simply are a bigot who tried and failed to justify his bigotry under the guise of science. Well said, Leslie! Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

08-09-2010, 02:05 AM	#36
marcusdexz Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 412 Senior Member	I didn't say that homosexual sex could result in reproduction. I said that gay people can reproduce. What, you were expecting reading comprehension from him? Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

08-09-2010, 02:08 AM	#37
Zdmlscid Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 384 Senior Member	What, you were expecting reading comprehension from him? Good Lord, no. I'm not that idealistic. And as you'll see with the post below, our boy once again lived down to expectations. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

08-09-2010, 02:10 AM	#38
ferelrossi Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 414 Senior Member	Oops sorry repeat most reulting from having two windows open. Sorry. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

08-09-2010, 02:14 AM	#39
inilbowly Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 497 Senior Member	Document the myriad of examples of natural reproduction resulting from homosexual sex? Why do I suddenly feel like a character in Groundhog Day? Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

08-09-2010, 02:15 AM	#40
orbidewa Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 681 Senior Member	Why do I suddenly feel like a character in Groundhog Day? "Babe....I got you babe...I got you babe." Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote