The Homosexual Dilemma

[WorldWatcher]

First, I didn't say that...

I caught that almost immediately and edited the post.

But since ya brought it up:

Children are the natural consequence of coitus.... it's what such was designed for.

Did you want to contest that?

Nope.

And none of the rest of your blather relates to the post to which I responded.


>>>>

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Our government policies were set up to help families raise children. It is the only reason these laws exist. Since gays cannot have children, having the government give them the same benefits is unreasonable.

Government discriminates every day. Tell me, is it discrimination if I have to pay taxes to provide for some one elses welfare?

Of course it is.

Mark

If a government like ours wants to establish economic rules that either enhance or tax partnerships that government MUST enforce those rules equally across the board. The only other option is to eliminate the special treatment that's given to ALL married couples.

What is so ******* hard to understand about the demand that our constitution makes for equal treatment under the law for ALL?

Either eliminate all the rules that treat married couples differently than non married partners, or grant those benefits to ALL who're willing to make the kind of legally binding commitment to each other that "marriage" means in 21st Century America.

This is not rocket science... Just a willingness to live and let live.

Not one of us is treated equally. Some pay taxes, some do not. If you want your "equality" then man up and demand that everyone pays the same tax.

If you don't then you really don't believe in equality, so, you are just like me.

I can fix that for you, everyone gets paid the same amount so the taxes are the same as well. Happy now?

You have no means to ever be paid what I earn, as you lack the cognitive means to do so. And I would not get out of BED to 'earn' what you earn, because, that which your intellectual means could, in the wildest fantasy, would not pay my grocery bill... .

So... no thanks. I'll pass.

(The reader should recognize that the Left always assumes that their little 'rules for radicals' will produce for THEM what normal people produce in earnings, when in truth, the only means for their 'feelings' to ever come to pass, is for them to keep earning their pitiful stipend... which everyone else must also 'adjust to'.

It turns out that 'equality' as defiend by the US Declaration of Independence, spoke ONLY of Equality before God; in terms of our rights; which speaks to on that which we will ALL be judged BY GOD. It had absolutely NOTHING to do with 'FAIRNESS', or equal pay, or equal outcomes or any of the endless misnomers that the Intellectually Less Fortunate have conjured... .

And THAT is why the US Revolution went as it went and why the French Revolution wen the other way.

The former was founded upon the objective reasoning wherein' God is the supreme authority of the Universe and that our liberty is AUTHORIZED by God... the latter on the idiocy that the Individual is the authority and his liberty rests upon his joining with others of like mind and that the collective means to project their power determines their liberty; feeling that such was only 'Fair'.

The Former emanates from good... the Latter from Evil.

Simple stuff.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

First, I didn't say that...

I caught that almost immediately and edited the post.

But since ya brought it up:

Children are the natural consequence of coitus.... it's what such was designed for.

Did you want to contest that?

Nope.

And none of the rest of your blather relates to the post to which I responded.


>>>>

My position relates precisely to your point, refuting it in its entirety.

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

LOL!

(You did the very BEST you could... and I want you to know that I see that.)

 

[WorldWatcher]

First, I didn't say that...

I caught that almost immediately and edited the post.

But since ya brought it up:

Children are the natural consequence of coitus.... it's what such was designed for.

Did you want to contest that?

Nope.

And none of the rest of your blather relates to the post to which I responded.


>>>>

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

LOL!

(You did the very BEST you could... and I want you to know that I see that.)

No concession, and claiming victory for something that didn't occur only makes you look silly.

A statement was made that without children it's not a "real marriage".

I asked the poster about States that require by law certain couples to be infertile and are they not "real marriages".

That was it.


>>>>

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

So State laws that require that a couple be assumed infertile or provide proof of infertility between a man and a woman are not "real marriages"?


>>>>

Can ya try to revise that sentence into something closer to lucid?

You said "Children are part of what a marriage is. At least a real marriage.".

I asked about states that required different-sex couples to show they are INFERTILE prior to being allowed to marry.

Are such Civil Marriages not "real marriages"?


Seems pretty easy to follow the question based on what you said.

>>>>

First, I didn't say that...

But since ya brought it up:

Children are the natural consequence of coitus.... it's what such was designed for.

Did you want to contest that?

LOL! No WAIT!

ROFL!

You're one of those who 'feel' that because coitus is pleasurable, that such was designed to provide pleasure?

LMAO!

Before ya answer... you should know, that sexual intercourse is purposed for conception... part and parcel of promoting the likelihood of such, the human body is designed to trigger specific hormonal responses when the brain recognizes the potential for such, the genitals are designed around a phalanx of sensors which induce a sense of pleasure, which ... AGAIN ... sets a pattern of pleasure, so as to promote the likelihood of recurrence, thus increasing the potential for procreation, toward the biological imperative OKA: The Propagation of the Species.

A process which rests deep within the base instincts of the mammal... thus is animalistic... and which, provides very real 'danger' to the individual human female, as it sharply reduces her means to sustain herself thus REDUCING the likelihood of procreation, which is balanced through MARRIAGE, wherein the male provides for the safety and sustenance of the female and subsequent progeny... which requires nearly two decades of constant nurturing and training before it is a viable individual.

Now... having been educated on the issue.

Go ahead and tell the board what you feel 'sex' is for... .

Don't be shy now... go ahead.

State for the record and swear on the lives of your loved ones that you have never engaged in sexual intercourse for any other reason than reproduction.

ROFLMNAO! And we have ANOTHER of the "Sex is Pleasurable... therefore Sex was designed to give pleasure" idiots.

Folks, you cannot make this crap UP!

And that is how we can "KNOW" that the would-be 'People', are truly, what in greater nature is that which is known as: FOOD!

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

First, I didn't say that...

I caught that almost immediately and edited the post.

But since ya brought it up:

Children are the natural consequence of coitus.... it's what such was designed for.

Did you want to contest that?

Nope.

And none of the rest of your blather relates to the post to which I responded.


>>>>

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

LOL!

(You did the very BEST you could... and I want you to know that I see that.)

No concession, and claiming victory for something that didn't occur only makes you look silly.

A statement was made that without children it's not a "real marriage".

I asked the poster about States that require by law certain couples to be infertile and are they not "real marriages".

That was it.


>>>>

LOL! I had no difficulties understanding the 'feelings' you were trying to express and the pitiful little query... .

Which is how I can 'know' that you did, in fact: "concede"... and ya did so SPECIFICALLY wherein you yielded from the standing points, which answered your query.

 

[80zephyr]

You are correct. Nobody cares about the kids. Our lenient divorce laws are proof of that.

So stop using them as part of your argument since they don't ******* matter in this case.

Well, since I do care about the kids, I suppose it is a valid part of my argument. So...

No, it isn't since the debate is about Marriage Equality not what's best for children.

I'll make you a deal. You can discuss marriage in the context that is important to you, and I can do it as well. Children are part of what a marriage is. At least a real marriage.

I'll be sure to let the infertile, or those who choose not to have children, that their marriages aren't real. My wife will tell you otherwise, and should she ever hire a divorce attorney I suspect they would be even more emphatic but you just go right along on your happy way, while the courts and anyone with common calls you a damn fool.

That you don't understand what I said is not my problem.

Mark

 

[Iceweasel]

Nature needs egg and sperm...but marriage does not need procreation....just like procreation doesn't need marriage. They are mutually exclusive.

Marriage doesn't even need sex to exist, there's no reason to limit it to two people. That's old fashioned thinking. If ten men want to marry each other they can use your argument.

Except when you add more than two...the property rights and child custody issues get more complicated....instead of A to B....we now have choice...A to B or C.....B to A or C, etc.

Wrong. A women can **** many men but the paternal father has to pay. Property is divided up every day. Never heard of guys knocking each other up though.

Yes, but you would need something above and beyond a marriage license for BOTH of those scenerios.....which complicates things more than what legal marriage contracts provide. There is your difference. Unsurmountable? No....but not doable with the current marriage license while there is no need to change marriage contracts with gay marriage.....just remove the legal restrictions (as many states have now done).

You're making shit up! Paternity obligations are ordered even without marriage. So no, you don't need something more complicated than marriage. Gay marriage doesn't change marriage? WTF?

If states are going to remove legal restrictions for gays there's no reason to stop there. Ten guys should be able to marry if they want. You don't have an argument against it.

 

[80zephyr]

Our government policies were set up to help families raise children. It is the only reason these laws exist. Since gays cannot have children, having the government give them the same benefits is unreasonable.

Government discriminates every day. Tell me, is it discrimination if I have to pay taxes to provide for some one elses welfare?

Of course it is.

Mark

If a government like ours wants to establish economic rules that either enhance or tax partnerships that government MUST enforce those rules equally across the board. The only other option is to eliminate the special treatment that's given to ALL married couples.

What is so ******* hard to understand about the demand that our constitution makes for equal treatment under the law for ALL?

Either eliminate all the rules that treat married couples differently than non married partners, or grant those benefits to ALL who're willing to make the kind of legally binding commitment to each other that "marriage" means in 21st Century America.

This is not rocket science... Just a willingness to live and let live.

Not one of us is treated equally. Some pay taxes, some do not. If you want your "equality" then man up and demand that everyone pays the same tax.

If you don't then you really don't believe in equality, so, you are just like me.

I can fix that for you, everyone gets paid the same amount so the taxes are the same as well. Happy now?

Nope. If the government wants equality, then

Who raised the child was of no concern? In which universe?

This one. It's human history.

Proof? Are you really claiming that the shunning of children before marriage had nothing to do with those children?

It had to do with *******, which people, wrongly, believed was a sin outside of marriage, usually. It's interesting to note that the lower classes of Victorian times, and many people of other times, were fine with ******* after you were engaged. Testing the waters so to speak.

And why did they condemn sex before marriage? Could it be that they wanted a stable couple to raise that child?

Nope. They didn't want you ******* around because it was immoral, period.

Why was it immoral?

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

No, its not. It will never "be over". Just like abortion.

Oh but it is. No one but the little ******-haters like give a damn. The rest are well aware of which side won.

Said the people who thought the abortion question was over.

No one thought that but the law of the land is settled. Now the fight is over the details and there will be no such thing in this case.

We'll see. In any case, I will not sit back quietly while I think our society is being destroyed. Hopefully, nobody would.

We aren't being destroyed drama queen, but your backwards mentality is, which is why you are fighting the over and done with. Society is moving on, and leaving you in the past where you belong.

You can't know that. Neither can I. But, I will continue to fight for what I believe to be the best situation for the human condition.

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

So State laws that require that a couple be assumed infertile or provide proof of infertility between a man and a woman are not "real marriages"?


>>>>

Can ya try to revise that sentence into something closer to lucid?

You said "Children are part of what a marriage is. At least a real marriage.".

I asked about states that required different-sex couples to show they are INFERTILE prior to being allowed to marry.

Are such Civil Marriages not "real marriages"?


Seems pretty easy to follow the question based on what you said.

>>>>

First, I didn't say that...

But since ya brought it up:

Children are the natural consequence of coitus.... it's what such was designed for.

Did you want to contest that?

LOL! No WAIT!

ROFL!

You're one of those who 'feel' that because coitus is pleasurable, that such was designed to provide pleasure?

LMAO!

Before ya answer... you should know, that sexual intercourse is purposed for conception... part and parcel of promoting the likelihood of such, the human body is designed to trigger specific hormonal responses when the brain recognizes the potential for such, the genitals are designed around a phalanx of sensors which induce a sense of pleasure, which ... AGAIN ... sets a pattern of pleasure, so as to promote the likelihood of recurrence, thus increasing the potential for procreation, toward the biological imperative OKA: The Propagation of the Species.

A process which rests deep within the base instincts of the mammal... thus is animalistic... and which, provides very real 'danger' to the individual human female, as it sharply reduces her means to sustain herself thus REDUCING the likelihood of procreation, which is balanced through MARRIAGE, wherein the male provides for the safety and sustenance of the female and subsequent progeny... which requires nearly two decades of constant nurturing and training before it is a viable individual.

Now... having been educated on the issue.

Go ahead and tell the board what you feel 'sex' is for... .

Don't be shy now... go ahead.

Nailed it.

Mark

 

[bodecea]

Nature needs egg and sperm...but marriage does not need procreation....just like procreation doesn't need marriage. They are mutually exclusive.

Marriage doesn't even need sex to exist, there's no reason to limit it to two people. That's old fashioned thinking. If ten men want to marry each other they can use your argument.

Except when you add more than two...the property rights and child custody issues get more complicated....instead of A to B....we now have choice...A to B or C.....B to A or C, etc.

Wrong. A women can **** many men but the paternal father has to pay. Property is divided up every day. Never heard of guys knocking each other up though.

Yes, but you would need something above and beyond a marriage license for BOTH of those scenerios.....which complicates things more than what legal marriage contracts provide. There is your difference. Unsurmountable? No....but not doable with the current marriage license while there is no need to change marriage contracts with gay marriage.....just remove the legal restrictions (as many states have now done).

You're making shit up! Paternity obligations are ordered even without marriage. So no, you don't need something more complicated than marriage. Gay marriage doesn't change marriage? WTF?

If states are going to remove legal restrictions for gays there's no reason to stop there. Ten guys should be able to marry if they want. You don't have an argument against it.

Of course they are.....after lawyers and documents and dna tests etc. However, a marriage license covers that quite easily along with over 1000 other protections, obligations etc. one gets with one simple marriage license.

 

[80zephyr]

So State laws that require that a couple be assumed infertile or provide proof of infertility between a man and a woman are not "real marriages"?


>>>>

Can ya try to revise that sentence into something closer to lucid?

You said "Children are part of what a marriage is. At least a real marriage.".

I asked about states that required different-sex couples to show they are INFERTILE prior to being allowed to marry.

Are such Civil Marriages not "real marriages"?


Seems pretty easy to follow the question based on what you said.

>>>>

Children as the natural consequence of coitus.... it's what such was designed for.

That is incorrect. Sex is for pleasure, and bonding, and reproduction hitches a ride now and then. It's why you can jerk off, and why nearly all sex that is had wasn't meant to produce children. My favorite sex could never produce a child but the wife does usually brush her teeth afterwards while I pour her a drink as a reward.

So the sex drive in humans is there to "have fun", and not for procreation?

Again. Wow.

Mark

 

[Iceweasel]

Of course they are.....after lawyers and documents and dna tests etc. However, a marriage license covers that quite easily along with over 1000 other protections, obligations etc. one gets with one simple marriage license.

Any contract can cover anything the parties want, happens everyday. And you don't need state permission. You don't know what you're talking about. Or you are lying.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So State laws that require that a couple be assumed infertile or provide proof of infertility between a man and a woman are not "real marriages"?


>>>>

Can ya try to revise that sentence into something closer to lucid?

You said "Children are part of what a marriage is. At least a real marriage.".

I asked about states that required different-sex couples to show they are INFERTILE prior to being allowed to marry.

Are such Civil Marriages not "real marriages"?


Seems pretty easy to follow the question based on what you said.

>>>>

First, I didn't say that...

But since ya brought it up:

Children are the natural consequence of coitus.... it's what such was designed for.

Did you want to contest that?

LOL! No WAIT!

ROFL!

You're one of those who 'feel' that because coitus is pleasurable, that such was designed to provide pleasure?

LMAO!

Before ya answer... you should know, that sexual intercourse is purposed for conception... part and parcel of promoting the likelihood of such, the human body is designed to trigger specific hormonal responses when the brain recognizes the potential for such, the genitals are designed around a phalanx of sensors which induce a sense of pleasure, which ... AGAIN ... sets a pattern of pleasure, so as to promote the likelihood of recurrence, thus increasing the potential for procreation, toward the biological imperative OKA: The Propagation of the Species.

A process which rests deep within the base instincts of the mammal... thus is animalistic... and which, provides very real 'danger' to the individual human female, as it sharply reduces her means to sustain herself thus REDUCING the likelihood of procreation, which is balanced through MARRIAGE, wherein the male provides for the safety and sustenance of the female and subsequent progeny... which requires nearly two decades of constant nurturing and training before it is a viable individual.

Now... having been educated on the issue.

Go ahead and tell the board what you feel 'sex' is for... .

Don't be shy now... go ahead.

State for the record and swear on the lives of your loved ones that you have never engaged in sexual intercourse for any other reason than reproduction.

ROFLMNAO! And we have ANOTHER of the "Sex is Pleasurable... therefore Sex was designed to give pleasure" idiots.

Folks, you cannot make this crap UP!

And that is how we can "KNOW" that the would-be 'People', are truly, what in greater nature is that which is known as: FOOD!

The repeated question that you refuse to answer is,

do you only engage in sexual intercourse for the purpose of reproduction?

 

[NYcarbineer]

So State laws that require that a couple be assumed infertile or provide proof of infertility between a man and a woman are not "real marriages"?


>>>>

Can ya try to revise that sentence into something closer to lucid?

You said "Children are part of what a marriage is. At least a real marriage.".

I asked about states that required different-sex couples to show they are INFERTILE prior to being allowed to marry.

Are such Civil Marriages not "real marriages"?


Seems pretty easy to follow the question based on what you said.

>>>>

Children as the natural consequence of coitus.... it's what such was designed for.

That is incorrect. Sex is for pleasure, and bonding, and reproduction hitches a ride now and then. It's why you can jerk off, and why nearly all sex that is had wasn't meant to produce children. My favorite sex could never produce a child but the wife does usually brush her teeth afterwards while I pour her a drink as a reward.

So the sex drive in humans is there to "have fun", and not for procreation?

Again. Wow.

Mark

why would the two be mutually exclusive?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

No, its not. It will never "be over". Just like abortion.

Oh but it is. No one but the little ******-haters like give a damn. The rest are well aware of which side won.

Said the people who thought the abortion question was over.

No one thought that but the law of the land is settled. Now the fight is over the details and there will be no such thing in this case.

We'll see. In any case, I will not sit back quietly while I think our society is being destroyed. Hopefully, nobody would.

We aren't being destroyed drama queen, but your backwards mentality is...

And by backwards mentality, it means to say: Soundly reasoned argument... .

It is through this, that we can readily see that the Leftist feels that the perversion that it represents, is 'winning'.

Which if true, simply means that the infected cultures will soon implode due to the failure of its own structure and another culture will replace it. A culture which does not suffer from insanity, thus which stores its homosexuals, out of sight, neatly in the back, on the top shelf of the closet... where such which one should toss but doesn't and which one doesn't want to otherwise clutter its environment... belongs.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So State laws that require that a couple be assumed infertile or provide proof of infertility between a man and a woman are not "real marriages"?


>>>>

Can ya try to revise that sentence into something closer to lucid?

You said "Children are part of what a marriage is. At least a real marriage.".

I asked about states that required different-sex couples to show they are INFERTILE prior to being allowed to marry.

Are such Civil Marriages not "real marriages"?


Seems pretty easy to follow the question based on what you said.

>>>>

First, I didn't say that...

But since ya brought it up:

Children are the natural consequence of coitus.... it's what such was designed for.

Did you want to contest that?

LOL! No WAIT!

ROFL!

You're one of those who 'feel' that because coitus is pleasurable, that such was designed to provide pleasure?

LMAO!

Before ya answer... you should know, that sexual intercourse is purposed for conception... part and parcel of promoting the likelihood of such, the human body is designed to trigger specific hormonal responses when the brain recognizes the potential for such, the genitals are designed around a phalanx of sensors which induce a sense of pleasure, which ... AGAIN ... sets a pattern of pleasure, so as to promote the likelihood of recurrence, thus increasing the potential for procreation, toward the biological imperative OKA: The Propagation of the Species.

A process which rests deep within the base instincts of the mammal... thus is animalistic... and which, provides very real 'danger' to the individual human female, as it sharply reduces her means to sustain herself thus REDUCING the likelihood of procreation, which is balanced through MARRIAGE, wherein the male provides for the safety and sustenance of the female and subsequent progeny... which requires nearly two decades of constant nurturing and training before it is a viable individual.

Now... having been educated on the issue.

Go ahead and tell the board what you feel 'sex' is for... .

Don't be shy now... go ahead.

Then the natural age for females to begin to have intercourse is when they've become sexually mature? Capable of reproducing?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Can ya try to revise that sentence into something closer to lucid?

You said "Children are part of what a marriage is. At least a real marriage.".

I asked about states that required different-sex couples to show they are INFERTILE prior to being allowed to marry.

Are such Civil Marriages not "real marriages"?


Seems pretty easy to follow the question based on what you said.

>>>>

First, I didn't say that...

But since ya brought it up:

Children are the natural consequence of coitus.... it's what such was designed for.

Did you want to contest that?

LOL! No WAIT!

ROFL!

You're one of those who 'feel' that because coitus is pleasurable, that such was designed to provide pleasure?

LMAO!

Before ya answer... you should know, that sexual intercourse is purposed for conception... part and parcel of promoting the likelihood of such, the human body is designed to trigger specific hormonal responses when the brain recognizes the potential for such, the genitals are designed around a phalanx of sensors which induce a sense of pleasure, which ... AGAIN ... sets a pattern of pleasure, so as to promote the likelihood of recurrence, thus increasing the potential for procreation, toward the biological imperative OKA: The Propagation of the Species.

A process which rests deep within the base instincts of the mammal... thus is animalistic... and which, provides very real 'danger' to the individual human female, as it sharply reduces her means to sustain herself thus REDUCING the likelihood of procreation, which is balanced through MARRIAGE, wherein the male provides for the safety and sustenance of the female and subsequent progeny... which requires nearly two decades of constant nurturing and training before it is a viable individual.

Now... having been educated on the issue.

Go ahead and tell the board what you feel 'sex' is for... .

Don't be shy now... go ahead.

State for the record and swear on the lives of your loved ones that you have never engaged in sexual intercourse for any other reason than reproduction.

ROFLMNAO! And we have ANOTHER of the "Sex is Pleasurable... therefore Sex was designed to give pleasure" idiots.

Folks, you cannot make this crap UP!

And that is how we can "KNOW" that the would-be 'People', are truly, what in greater nature is that which is known as: FOOD!

The repeated question that you refuse to answer is,

do you only engage in sexual intercourse for the purpose of reproduction?

OH! You 'feel' your little query wasn't answered... LOL! Now isn't that PRECIOUS?

Here's a clue scamp... "Why" one engages in sex, has no bearing on "WHAT NATURE DESIGNED SEX FOR".

But it DOES, however, demonstrate the efficacy of nature's design.

 

[boilermaker55]

Yes because that is what all of your kind eventually refer too.
This world is about adversity and diversity and acceptance.
No one group and govern implicitly. If that happens then it goes against all the laws of real nature.
Not the selective group you decided to live in.
It does strike odd that the ones that profess faith the most seem to have the least grasp of what they believe.
They want it to fit into their microcosm world. It become deplorable.

Yes! In that religion. But once again your "kind" step over the boundaries of pushing an agenda onto those that have not allegiance to your faith.

Faith?

We're talking the physical laws of nature... human physiology. Inees and outees... Round Pegs designed to go into round wholes which are DESIGNED TO RECEIVE THEM... for biologically essential purposes, critical to the viability of THE SPECIES.

You need 'faith' to accept THAT WHICH IS NOT EVEN REMOTELY DEBATABLE?

If that is true... you're truly helpless and nature will most likely cull you from the herd quite soon.