E
Ethan88
Guest
Dodge #15
, to review, here’s my question:and here’s post #124
So…where does it answer the question? Why not bold it for us?
- Status
, to review, here’s my question:
E
Ethan88
Guest
HAHAHAHAHA, do you know what in vitro fertilization is? You have to be a troll!
Since when does in vitro fertilization cross a sperm with another or an egg with another?
Neither two males nor two females can contribute what is necessary to conceive a child, in vitro or otherwise. Making it colourful will not change reality.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Careful, Ethan. Your last post was deleted in which you accused a member of trolling.
It is good for you to be here and in dialogue with knowledgeable Catholics, so it would be a shame for you to be banned.
Learn from the members here.
Stephen168
New member
Stephen168
New member
I guess I’ll have to bold it because you don’t seem to actually read what I’ve said.
If you don’t understand that answer that answer for clarification.
You seem to skip alot of posts, see please read the one before this one because it has the answer bolded.
The answer is in dark black bold letters unlike the regular letters I used in post 214 where I originally answer your question.
The pronoun ‘they’ in my answer is referring to the 12 and 50 year old married couple.
B
Bradski
Guest
You think that the very reason why the state exists is to protect its own existence? That’s odd to say the least. I was going to continue by saying…even if that were true…but it’s too far off the radar to be entertained even in a hypothetical.
You might have forgotten that the argument is not to dismantle the current definition of marriage (thereby throwing the state’s future into jeopardy!). Gay people are going to make lifetime commitments to each other whatever you or I or the state decides. People will still get married and have kids if they want. Old people who aren’t interested in sex will still get married. People who can’t have sex will still get married. People will have sex and have kids without getting married.
All this will go on as normal. Nothing will change. Except the state may decide that the legal definition of what constitutes a marriage can include same sex couples.
And the sun will still rise in the east tomorrow. Your coffee will still taste just the same, the price of a beer won’t go up and my wife will still want me to fix the front step. If no-one told you that that decision had been made, then you would have no way of realising that it had happened. It would, quite literally, change nothing at all in the way that the world works for 99% of the people in it. Including you.
But for that perhaps 1%, things would be a little better. And people who have spent waaaay too long arguing about it will eventually find something else to complain about. An everyone else will wonder what on earth they were worried about in the first place.
You want to argue that allowing my niece to marry her partner will result in the collapse of the entire political system? You’re having a laugh, Peter. Tell me you’re not being serious.
E
Ethan88
Guest
Excellent, so basically you are someone who is against gay marriage, but open to polygamous marriages and 50 year olds marrying 12 year olds so long as they are opposite sex relationships.
Just wanted to get that on record, thank you.
My apologies PRmerger, it’s just unusual for me to run into anyone who’s graduated high school and not know what invitro fertilization is, and run into someone who thinks homosexuals can not take part in such.
I gave him too much credit, and assumed he was trolling, my apologies.
Stephen168
New member
Yes, my reasoning is consistent
In vitro fertilization requires egg cells and sperm cells.
Your boyfriend does not have egg cells.
Therefore, by design, as a couple, you and your boyfriend are sterile.
By design pedophile couples are sterile.
You want to include your sterility in marriage but leave out pedophile couples.
Your reasoning is inconsistent.
E
Ethan88
Guest
Did you just say…did I just read…oh my…you know what, I’ll just leave it at “wow”. I won’t rag on you for not knowing what invitro or sterility mean, but, wow…just, wow.
Yet you’re for 50 year olds dating 12 year olds
Umm, yes. Children can not consent to a sexual relationship with an adult, something which you bizzarly disagree with
Lack of comprehension does not mean the logic proposed is inconsistent.
Stephen168
New member
Yes, as you could tell from my post I know exactly what it is and what is required. Here let me bold it for you. And the line in red is why is doesn’t work for you and your boyfriend. I did leave it up to you to realize a woman was required to get the egg. Your boyfriend is not a woman, so there is no egg. No egg, no in vitro. No in vitro, no baby. Now comes the line in blue.
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
Okay Ethan, you are on!
Explain how two males or two females can produce young by in vitro means!
We admit our hopeless ignorance and bow to your massive store of knowledge and intelligence. Explain away!
Stephen168
New member
A couple old enough to create and raise childrenYet you’re for 50 year olds dating 12 year olds
Not giving consent is a legal definition. It can be changed. You have no “reason” to disapprove, I do. My reason is, they are sterile by design, as a couple, just like you and your boyfriend.
Stephen168
New member
I would like to hear that explanation myself
opcorn:
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
Why do you think the state (defined as the collection of all its citizens) does exist, then?
E
Ethan88
Guest
Question, if me and my boyfriend use a woman for invitro, what did we just do? Think about your response, after you type it, read it over. If my boyfriend donates to an egg and goes through invitro, what did he just do? I’ll give you a hint: “he contributed in ______ a child, something a sterile person could not have done”
No problem, the answer is something called invitro fertilization. I can go into detail with this if you’d like, but first we should cover the foundation; do you know what a male and a female is? Do you understand how the anatomy works? Do you know how fertilization works?
I can’t believe I’m arguing with someone in favor of adults have sex with teenagers but here goes: consent is the reason I disapprove of it. A child is not old or wise enough to understand the implications of a sexual relationship with an adult.
You APPROVE of this relationship so long as the teenager is able to reproduce, that is, conceive a child. I’d love to see your face if your child came to you and told you she wanted to marry a 50 year old man, I’m sure you’d approve in that situation
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
Both you and your boyfriend have used the woman’s eggs to have a child with the woman. You and your boyfriend have not had a child together, perhaps at the same time, but not with each other. The genetic makeup of that child will not be comprised of your and your boyfriend’s DNA. Thus you could not have a child together.
Thanks for clarifying. So your boyfriend donates an egg that is his? He formed that, how? Is your boyfriend really a woman, then?
Are you just playing with our heads with that massive mind of yours?
E
Ethan88
Guest
Correct, you see a child is to be loved the loving parents that take them in. There are several heterosexual (even Catholics) who shoot their sperm and then take off to live in another country. Those children may have the father’s DNA, doesn’t mean he’s worth being a parent.
Also, I was giving you and Stephan a 101 on how invitro works, since you’ve never heard of it before. This is not to say that having a child immediately makes a relationship moral or ethical, you’d agree, right?
There’s a “to” in the quote that you’ve conveniently excluded, but then again, can’t say I’m surprised.
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
Be honest enough to admit you edited your post after I quoted it. Don’t put that error on me.
Stephen168
New member
That maybe true but it does not make you and your boyfriend, by design, together fertile. You had to use a woman who was not your wife. You and your boyfriend by design, together are sterile and adopting children doesn’t change that.
P
PRmerger
Guest
It would be helpful if you could cite the post in which this member identified his ignorance of in vitro fertilization? Thanks.
Because the post I read to which you were responding asked where IVF crossed a sperm with another sperm or an egg with another egg.
I think, perhaps, you did not read very well the response. Yes?
Or are you of the opinion the IVF fertilizes a sperm and a sperm?
- Status