Question to gays and lesbians wanting marriage rights - denounce you're men/women?

[Pop23]

Why not simply answer the question. Which of the three is the unique relationship?

But your question is irrelevant. I can ask an irrelevant question and ask you to answer it too, but I'm not going to because it's a waste of time.

Unless you're willing to restrict marriage to couples capable of child-bearing then your argument is irrelevant. Can we confirm that this is your argument?

using your logic it is then possible to allow siblings to marry.....or parents and their children.....or you and your uncle or aunt or what the heck both of them....

polygamy of course would be a shoo-in....

I'd really hoped this would not "go there"

 

[KevinWestern]

Why not simply answer the question. Which of the three is the unique relationship?

But your question is irrelevant. I can ask an irrelevant question and ask you to answer it too, but I'm not going to because it's a waste of time.

Unless you're willing to restrict marriage to couples capable of child-bearing then your argument is irrelevant. Can we confirm that this is your argument?

using your logic it is then possible to allow siblings to marry.....or parents and their children.....or you and your uncle or aunt or what the heck both of them....

polygamy of course would be a shoo-in....

True, my argument is any two consenting adults aught to be able to marry.

Sure, there'll be some sickos who want to marry their parent, or sibling, or aunt, and some people who want to take on 4 wives. But, who the heck cares? What, are we talking maybe 1 out of every 1,000,0000 adults in the US would actually want to participate in a relationship with their mom? Or sister? Or 10 wives.

That's like worrying Lake Michigan will become salty because you dumped a single salt packet in it.

 

[KevinWestern]

Only one of the three types of relationships can start s family without outside intervention.

Would you not agree, of the three, gay males, gay females and heterosexual couple, one is vastly unique because of that?

Nope. Because too many straight couples either have difficulty conceiving, can't conceive, choose not to, OR get married at an age that precludes bearing babies.

What are you trying to say? If you can't start a family, you shouldn't be allowed to wed? Sounds mighty lame to me.

Oh no, not at all. Reproductive privacy is the law of the land as could be the case with age. Then you argue that we should discriminate based on disability?

Care now to take a shot at my question?

Please name the future taxpayer, firefighter, teacher, artist created from a gay sexual coupling.

Really? Is there any question that the heterosexual relationship is the unique of the three?

But again, what does this have to do with the conversation on whether or not a consenting adult should be able to choose any adult consenting partner?

If you do not believe that reproductive ability should be the "gate" to obtaining a marriage license, then there's no reason to discuss it.

I'll ask something irrelevant too: Please name the future taxpayer, firefighter, teacher, artist created from a couple where the male cannot produce any sperm...

 

[nodoginnafight]

Why not simply answer the question. Which of the three is the unique relationship?

But your question is irrelevant. I can ask an irrelevant question and ask you to answer it too, but I'm not going to because it's a waste of time.

Unless you're willing to restrict marriage to couples capable of child-bearing then your argument is irrelevant. Can we confirm that this is your argument?

using your logic it is then possible to allow siblings to marry.....or parents and their children.....or you and your uncle or aunt or what the heck both of them....

polygamy of course would be a shoo-in....

Quite a leap there. He is saying that procreation is not a prerequisite for a "real" marriage.

He hasn't said anything that would logically lead to what you suggest.

 

[Pop23]

Nope. Because too many straight couples either have difficulty conceiving, can't conceive, choose not to, OR get married at an age that precludes bearing babies.

What are you trying to say? If you can't start a family, you shouldn't be allowed to wed? Sounds mighty lame to me.

Oh no, not at all. Reproductive privacy is the law of the land as could be the case with age. Then you argue that we should discriminate based on disability?

Care now to take a shot at my question?

Please name the future taxpayer, firefighter, teacher, artist created from a gay sexual coupling.

Really? Is there any question that the heterosexual relationship is the unique of the three?

But again, what does this have to do with the conversation on whether or not a consenting adult should be able to choose any adult consenting partner?

If you do not believe that reproductive ability should be the "gate" to obtaining a marriage license, then there's no reason to discuss it.

I'll ask something irrelevant too: Please name the future taxpayer, firefighter, teacher, artist created from a couple where the male cannot produce any sperm...

Surgically unable to produce, injured so that they can't produce or have an illness or born without the ability?

 

[Michelle420]

Only one of the three types of relationships can start s family without outside intervention.

Would you not agree, of the three, gay males, gay females and heterosexual couple, one is vastly unique because of that?

Nope. Because too many straight couples either have difficulty conceiving, can't conceive, choose not to, OR get married at an age that precludes bearing babies.

What are you trying to say? If you can't start a family, you shouldn't be allowed to wed? Sounds mighty lame to me.

Oh no, not at all. Reproductive privacy is the law of the land as could be the case with age. Then you argue that we should discriminate based on disability?

Care now to take a shot at my question?

Please name the future taxpayer, firefighter, teacher, artist created from a gay sexual coupling.

Really? Is there any question that the heterosexual relationship is the unique of the three?

Can't name any, but I am sure there are future gay taxpayer, firefighter, teacher, artist created from a heterosexuall coupling.



I wouldn't have taken you for a homophobe pop23. Kinda disappointed

 

[KevinWestern]

But your question is irrelevant. I can ask an irrelevant question and ask you to answer it too, but I'm not going to because it's a waste of time.

Unless you're willing to restrict marriage to couples capable of child-bearing then your argument is irrelevant. Can we confirm that this is your argument?

using your logic it is then possible to allow siblings to marry.....or parents and their children.....or you and your uncle or aunt or what the heck both of them....

polygamy of course would be a shoo-in....

Quite a leap there. He is saying that procreation is not a prerequisite for a "real" marriage.

He hasn't said anything that would logically lead to what you suggest.

To keep this simple, I generally argue that any consenting adult aught to be able to marry any other consenting adult. I suppose this means we'll have some weirdos here or there marrying their mom or whatnot but as I mentioned (1) who gives a f$ck and (2) the number of people actually willing to do this is so ridiculously tiny that to fret over it is like (again)..

..worrying about a salt packet turning Lake Michigan into a saltwater lake; it's nonsensical.

 

[BDBoop]

There are many children of gay parents.

I guess I shouln't have gotten married in '95, since I had a hysterectomy in '93. Right?

 

[KevinWestern]

Oh no, not at all. Reproductive privacy is the law of the land as could be the case with age. Then you argue that we should discriminate based on disability?

Care now to take a shot at my question?

Please name the future taxpayer, firefighter, teacher, artist created from a gay sexual coupling.

Really? Is there any question that the heterosexual relationship is the unique of the three?

But again, what does this have to do with the conversation on whether or not a consenting adult should be able to choose any adult consenting partner?

If you do not believe that reproductive ability should be the "gate" to obtaining a marriage license, then there's no reason to discuss it.

I'll ask something irrelevant too: Please name the future taxpayer, firefighter, teacher, artist created from a couple where the male cannot produce any sperm...

Surgically unable to produce, injured so that they can't produce or have an illness or born without the ability?

How about a man that was born with non-functioning testicles that absolutely cannot create any sperm. Please name a single future taxpayer, firefighter, teacher, artist created from a couple that includes one male that falls under this category.

 

[Pop23]

Nope. Because too many straight couples either have difficulty conceiving, can't conceive, choose not to, OR get married at an age that precludes bearing babies.

What are you trying to say? If you can't start a family, you shouldn't be allowed to wed? Sounds mighty lame to me.

Oh no, not at all. Reproductive privacy is the law of the land as could be the case with age. Then you argue that we should discriminate based on disability?

Care now to take a shot at my question?

Please name the future taxpayer, firefighter, teacher, artist created from a gay sexual coupling.

Really? Is there any question that the heterosexual relationship is the unique of the three?

Can't name any, but I am sure there are future gay taxpayer, firefighter, teacher, artist created from a heterosexuall coupling.




I wouldn't have taken you for a homophobe pop23. Kinda disappointed

Why would you call me one now?

Have I made any statement that would lead you to believe I were, or is it just people who disagree that are?

Note, I did not want to go the route of sibling marrying or venture into multiple spouse marriage.

I think I'm trying to have an honest discussion.

 

[Pop23]

But again, what does this have to do with the conversation on whether or not a consenting adult should be able to choose any adult consenting partner?

If you do not believe that reproductive ability should be the "gate" to obtaining a marriage license, then there's no reason to discuss it.

I'll ask something irrelevant too: Please name the future taxpayer, firefighter, teacher, artist created from a couple where the male cannot produce any sperm...

Surgically unable to produce, injured so that they can't produce or have an illness or born without the ability?

How about a man that was born with non-functioning testicles that absolutely cannot create any sperm. Please name a single future taxpayer, firefighter, teacher, artist created from a couple that includes one male that falls under this category.

I can't. He has a disability. I don't discriminate against the disabled.

 

[BDBoop]

Oh no, not at all. Reproductive privacy is the law of the land as could be the case with age. Then you argue that we should discriminate based on disability?

Care now to take a shot at my question?

Please name the future taxpayer, firefighter, teacher, artist created from a gay sexual coupling.

Really? Is there any question that the heterosexual relationship is the unique of the three?

Can't name any, but I am sure there are future gay taxpayer, firefighter, teacher, artist created from a heterosexuall coupling.




I wouldn't have taken you for a homophobe pop23. Kinda disappointed

Why would you call me one now?

Have I made any statement that would lead you to believe I were, or is it just people who disagree that are?

Note, I did not want to go the route of sibling marrying or venture into multiple spouse marriage.

I think I'm trying to have an honest discussion.

An honest discussion in which gays can't marry because they can't produce babies by the means which you find acceptable?

Sure, that makes sense.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Let me assure you first of all that I have nothing against gays and lesbians, because I am under no illusion that this world has a shortage of people as it is. I'm your friend .....

Question: I understand that you may feel that there is no need for you to compromise and that you are entitled to the right to marry just like anyone else, but I am not the one to make it legal, my question is this: to please the critics, would you be willing to compromise in exchange for gay marriage that you will no longer be allowed to be considered men/women, on drivers license etc. it will state gay or lesbian?

Also, since many straight men (and I understand them, especially younger) may feel awkward if a gay man next to them enters a public restroom, so gay men must use women's restroom and lesbians must use men's room, is that ok with you? I would have no problem with a lesbian watching me pee...

By "DEnounce", you probably mean REnounce ... right?

Since when does being gay mean you are no longer the gender you were born?

GAWD but the homophobes keep coming up with some weird shit. Why don't they just pee before they leave home and wear a catheter when they're out?

That way there's no chance someone my get a glance at their precious little pee pee's.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

But your question is irrelevant. I can ask an irrelevant question and ask you to answer it too, but I'm not going to because it's a waste of time.

Unless you're willing to restrict marriage to couples capable of child-bearing then your argument is irrelevant. Can we confirm that this is your argument?

using your logic it is then possible to allow siblings to marry.....or parents and their children.....or you and your uncle or aunt or what the heck both of them....

polygamy of course would be a shoo-in....

True, my argument is any two consenting adults aught to be able to marry.

Sure, there'll be some sickos who want to marry their parent, or sibling, or aunt, and some people who want to take on 4 wives. But, who the heck cares? What, are we talking maybe 1 out of every 1,000,0000 adults in the US would actually want to participate in a relationship with their mom? Or sister? Or 10 wives.

That's like worrying Lake Michigan will become salty because you dumped a single salt packet in it.

what your logic is advocating is basically 'anything goes'.....this will only tear apart an orderly society....therefore it is within the rights of society to limit marriage to its traditional meaning in order for its own self-preservation...

 

[BDBoop]

using your logic it is then possible to allow siblings to marry.....or parents and their children.....or you and your uncle or aunt or what the heck both of them....

polygamy of course would be a shoo-in....

True, my argument is any two consenting adults aught to be able to marry.

Sure, there'll be some sickos who want to marry their parent, or sibling, or aunt, and some people who want to take on 4 wives. But, who the heck cares? What, are we talking maybe 1 out of every 1,000,0000 adults in the US would actually want to participate in a relationship with their mom? Or sister? Or 10 wives.

That's like worrying Lake Michigan will become salty because you dumped a single salt packet in it.

what your logic is advocating is basically 'anything goes'.....this will only tear apart an orderly society....therefore it is within the rights of society to limit marriage to its traditional meaning in order for its own self-preservation...

Bullshit.

 

[Pop23]

Can't name any, but I am sure there are future gay taxpayer, firefighter, teacher, artist created from a heterosexuall coupling.




I wouldn't have taken you for a homophobe pop23. Kinda disappointed

Why would you call me one now?

Have I made any statement that would lead you to believe I were, or is it just people who disagree that are?

Note, I did not want to go the route of sibling marrying or venture into multiple spouse marriage.

I think I'm trying to have an honest discussion.

An honest discussion in which gays can't marry because they can't produce babies by the means which you find acceptable?

Sure, that makes sense.

I'll then ask again, is the ability for a heterosexual couple to create a life within that coupling the same or different than a homosexual coupling where the possibility of creating is nil?

 

[Michelle420]

Oh no, not at all. Reproductive privacy is the law of the land as could be the case with age. Then you argue that we should discriminate based on disability?

Care now to take a shot at my question?

Please name the future taxpayer, firefighter, teacher, artist created from a gay sexual coupling.

Really? Is there any question that the heterosexual relationship is the unique of the three?

Can't name any, but I am sure there are future gay taxpayer, firefighter, teacher, artist created from a heterosexuall coupling.




I wouldn't have taken you for a homophobe pop23. Kinda disappointed

Why would you call me one now?

Have I made any statement that would lead you to believe I were, or is it just people who disagree that are?

Note, I did not want to go the route of sibling marrying or venture into multiple spouse marriage.

I think I'm trying to have an honest discussion.

Do you support gay marriage ?

 

[BDBoop]

Why would you call me one now?

Have I made any statement that would lead you to believe I were, or is it just people who disagree that are?

Note, I did not want to go the route of sibling marrying or venture into multiple spouse marriage.

I think I'm trying to have an honest discussion.

An honest discussion in which gays can't marry because they can't produce babies by the means which you find acceptable?

Sure, that makes sense.

I'll then ask again, is the ability for a heterosexual couple to create a life within that coupling the same or different than a homosexual coupling where the possibility of creating is nil?

I'll answer again.

Nobody.

Gives.

A.

Flying.

Fuck.

Immaterial. Doesn't matter. Your point is moot.

Etc.

 

[Michelle420]

Surgically unable to produce, injured so that they can't produce or have an illness or born without the ability?

How about a man that was born with non-functioning testicles that absolutely cannot create any sperm. Please name a single future taxpayer, firefighter, teacher, artist created from a couple that includes one male that falls under this category.

I can't. He has a disability. I don't discriminate against the disabled.

Who do you discriminate against?

 

[KevinWestern]

Surgically unable to produce, injured so that they can't produce or have an illness or born without the ability?

How about a man that was born with non-functioning testicles that absolutely cannot create any sperm. Please name a single future taxpayer, firefighter, teacher, artist created from a couple that includes one male that falls under this category.

I can't. He has a disability. I don't discriminate against the disabled.

Ok, how about this?

Please name a single future taxpayer, firefighter, teacher, artist created from a couple that included a female who married long past her reproductive age and absolutely can no longer have children?