Yes but you haven’t made it clear that it is a defect rather than an anomaly like double-jointedness. Being attracted to the same sex does not destroy the host. Partaking in certain sexual acts may but not all homosexuals partake in those certain acts, and that is another matter altogether.So have birth defects.
But Can they marry? That is the subject of this threadThere are billions of people on this planet and homosexuality has always existed, so it seems it has had no detrimental effect upon procreation. I simply can not see it’s destructiveness to the begetting of new life.
You would go seeking birth defects and trying to make them happen? On purpose? Why?Yes but you haven’t made it clear that it is a defect rather than an anomaly like double-jointedness. Being attracted to the same sex does not destroy the host. Partaking in certain sexual acts may but not all homosexuals partake in those certain acts, and that is another matter altogether.
See post 115.We need a definition of marriage from YOU so we are on the same page.
I assume you believe Obama is a secret Muslim, that Jews are secretly plotting to take over the word, and that the world will end in 2012. Hey, making assumptions about people without evidence is easier than I thought.I assume you believe pedophiles couples should marry, also.
We can’t have a discussion with you as long as you are being dishonest and won’t answer our questions.I never said I can’t explain why you think I can’t explain (but thanks for putting words into my mouth). Rather, I said the subject of incest is totally irrelevant to the present discussion.
In my last post I said that you haven’t made it clear that it is a defect rather than anomolyYou would go seeking birth defects and trying to make them happen? On purpose? Why?
Wow, where the heck did that come from? Getting to the bottom of the barrel are you, Spencelo?See post 115.
I assume you believe Obama is a secret Muslim, that Jews are secretly plotting to take over the word, and that the world will end in 2012. Hey, making assumptions about people without evidence is easier than I thought.
We can’t have a discussion as long as you are being dishonest about me being dishonest and asking questions that are totally irrelevant to the subject in this thread.We can’t have a discussion with you as long as you are being dishonest and won’t answer our questions.
Now you are just throwing a very uncivil tantrum.See post 115.
I assume you believe Obama is a secret Muslim, that Jews are secretly plotting to take over the word, and that the world will end in 2012. Hey, making assumptions about people without evidence is easier than I thought.
Your thread is about marriage. It’s hypocritical for you to criticize us for limiting the definition of marriage when you are placing your own limits on it.We can’t have a discussion as long as you are being dishonest about me being dishonest and asking questions that are totally irrelevant to the subject in this thread.
Be honest and give us your definition of marriage?We can’t have a discussion as long as you are being dishonest about me being dishonest and asking questions that are totally irrelevant to the subject in this thread.
Well, here’s where it gets interesting you know. Some anomalies are physical defects and some are moral defects and some are psychological defects. Some are just simply anomalies in the sense that they are chosen acts which are unusual, and may be detrimental in some way. However, none of the aforementioned are NORMAL. They’re all exceptions to the norm in some way. And they’re all quite negative.In my last post I said that you haven’t made it clear that it is a defect rather than anomoly
Right, and stating that I’m in favor of pedophile couples marrying wasn’t uncouth.Now you are just throwing a very uncivil tantrum.
Some same-sex couples CAN marry (e.g., in NY), but most can’t. Why you think they shouldn’t be allowed to marry is still a mystery to me.You have no reason to believe what you do because you can’t even define it. Same-sex couples can not marry, to think so is irrational and that is why you refuse to define marriage. You can not reasonably support your definition.
In this thread, I haven’t placed limits on the definition of marriage. I’ve simply limited the discussion to the topic at hand: that is, SSM. It’s no small wonder why you can’t seem to understand this.Your thread is about marriage. It’s hypocritical for you to criticize us for limiting the definition of marriage when you are placing your own limits on it.
But you did, because of your reasons. Wanting homosexual marriage this way is wanting it for the same reasons that the guy who wants little kids wants it.Right, and stating that I’m in favor of pedophile couples marrying wasn’t uncouth.
NO. They can get a piece of paper in NY. They still can’t marry in NY. You can’t marry someone who is the same sex. You can only pretend, and in some places you can now pretend with paperwork. Big deal. It’s still only pretending.Some same-sex couples CAN marry (e.g., in NY), but most can’t. Why you think they shouldn’t be allowed to marry is still a mystery to me.
I already admitted it’s not the norm. In my first post to you I said why must something outside the norm necessarily be invalid, defective, and a threat to the norm. Lots of things are rare or abnormal but I don’t find the need to assign moral value to their existence.Well, here’s where it gets interesting you know. Some anomalies are physical defects and some are moral defects and some are psychological defects. Some are just simply anomalies in the sense that they are chosen acts which are unusual, and may be detrimental in some way. However, none of the aforementioned are NORMAL. They’re all exceptions to the norm in some way.
I mean, shooting up a campus is abnormal. Committing suicide is abnormal. Jumping off a skyscraper is abnormal. Standing in front of a speeding train is abnormal. Homosexuality is abnormal.
So are you saying you have a problem with pedophiles marrying? If so, based on what standard for morality? One that can be changed to allow it when someone thinks it should be ok?Right, and stating that I’m in favor of pedophile couples marrying wasn’t uncouth.
This is a lie – I never stated that I was in favor of pedophilia marriage.But you did
If you ever wonder why people on my side think you’re bigoted and hateful, re-read what you just wrote., because of your reasons. Wanting homosexual marriage this way is wanting it for the same reasons that the guy who wants little kids wants it.
This is false. In NY, same-sex couples have the legal right to get married.NO. They can get a piece of paper in NY. They still can’t marry in NY. You can’t marry someone who is the same sex.
But the fact is that sex has a moral component. Sexual activity with another human being is not neutral morally.I already admitted it’s not the norm. In my first post to you I said why must something outside the norm necessarily be invalid, defective, and a threat to the norm. Lots of things are rare or abnormal but I don’t find the need to assign moral value to their existence.
The reasons that you have are the same as the reasons that a pedophile has. Or a person who engages in incest.This is a lie – I never stated that I was in favor of pedophilia marriage.
Name calling is a bad thing.If you ever wonder why people on my side think you’re bigoted and hateful, re-read what you just wrote.
There’s more to marriage than legality.This is false. In NY, same-sex couples have the legal right to get married.