I answered a question directed at me from another poster. I thought replying to questions and points was what we did here. It was always the last lines of mine and the other person's posts. If anything THESE posts about a made up "focusing on medical" is much more bullshit than anything I have posted so far. You still have yet to show exactly which posts were so heinous. Methinks you are full of fecal material. If you would read the last couple of posts, we had come to an end and it was done. If you and yo homie would STFU about it, the whole topic would be done.

__________________
Even if you hold the minority opinion, stick to your guns and go against the flow if that's what you truly believe. (CnRedd)

You LIED that was "all" I talked about. It wasn't. You are.


No. I wouldn't.
I have repeatedly shown how I have no interest in the "natural birth" side-track you have been performing.

And you repeat your LIE. Never side-tracked a single one of my posts.


Whatever excuse floats your boat...
I think there are enough people around here who have observed your behavior that I don't even have to waste time refuting the crap you just tried to claim.

You can't refute a "fact" based on you own lies.


Careful of the standards you set, cause they may just come back to bite you in the ass.
Like in this case. I can prove that situation is false for "traditional marriage".
Simply being in a "traditional marriage" does not give people a "capability" that makes them better than non-traditional marriages.

But we aren't talking about "people" we are talking about "Traditional Marriage". "Motherhood" is still motherhood even if the individual "mother" is a crackhead. We don't define motherhood by the actions of the few.

Funny how you did that.
You just went from a standard of talking about one race being better, to just providing a distinction of "different".
So maybe since blacks are "different", they can sit at the back of the bus.

And "why" would blacks have to sit at the back of the bus? I can tell you "why" homosexuals shouldn't be able to "marry". You have yet to justify that comparison. And just a hint, there are several other races to choose from.

It's interesting to watch how people have two different sets of standards for these issues.
One which excuses (or attempts to justify) their prejudice on the gay issue.
Another which prevents prejudice on issues they don't want prejudice in.

The standards are based on the fact that the characteristics are different. "Race" is different from "Sexual orientation". They are hardly comparable. But you can't seem to grasp THAT concept.

Why do you even think that's a legitimate challenge?
You know I don't think there are any legitimate racial differences that support discrimination, just like I don't think there are any legitimate sexual orientation differences which support discrimination.

Well why even mention it then. Because you know I think that homosexuality has CLOSE comparisons with "other" sexual orientations...And I have no problem linking them....Should I? If you can't support your own analogies and comparisons, why even make them?

The point is that the SAME FLIMSY EXCUSE you throw out there for "sexual orientation discrimination" can be turned back around on you.

No it can't and you haven't done it. If I say "homosexuals are space aliens", it doesn't mean crap unless I show "why" I think they are such. Otherwise it's just the same bullshit you've been spewing.

For example, mixed race couples are statistically higher for break-ups.
An irrelevant factor, since such GENERALIZING statistics don't mean that a couple that is mixed race and can make it shouldn't be given the chance.

But ALL homosexual couples are sterile and biologically physiologically aberrant. That's not statistics. That's just fact. Risk of breaking up is one thing, being sexually abnormal from birth is another.

Lame, stupid, and inaccurate attempt.
I could quote the scientific community, medical community, and a variety of polls but you would still pretend it was "only to homosexuals"...

That wasn't what I meant....The fact that scientists have shown that sex can be for social and pair bonding reasons doesn't mean that attraction and sex between the same gender has been justified. So even if the biologic aspects have been removed from marriage, that doesn't mean that homosexuality has therefore been justified to be included. THAT was what I meant.


I thought that much was obvious.
Because they can't procreate.
It was right there in my question.
Do I need to draw you a map, or just use smler words?
The fact that menopause is a natural occuring life phase is irrelevant.
Homosexuality is natural as well. That observation is meaningless in your analysis, so should menopauses's "naturalness" be...

It is totally relevant. Menopause effects ALL female humans at a certain age. It is a life cycle that is normal for humans to experience. Homosexuality is a sexual defect that effects a small number of people rendering them sexually disordered. If they don't/can't get it fixed, they should be allowed to legally recognize their union, but not call it a "marriage" which recognizes the ONLY human relationship that humans are intended to partner. Something that I thought was obvious.

Even though fxashun can't recognize it, he has established a constitutional violation.
If a rationale is provided for excluding one group to be a basis for discrimination, that rationale must be applied EQUALLY across all groups for discrimination.
If the right of marriage is based on "procreation", then it should be based as such for all groups. Doing otherwise is a violation of the constitution.

We exclude many groups...The disabled are excluded from many jobs because they don't qualify. And homosexuality doesn't qualify for marriage. Since it's not a normal human condition.

This is the essential reason why "Jim Crow" laws were shot down. If "illiterate" is a standard prohibiting blacks from voting, it has to be a standard prohibiting whites from voting too.

Is that the reason? That one reason? I seriously doubt THAT was the one reason the wide ranging Jim Crow laws were abolished. Got any links that say that?

And here you have yet another example of how fxashun is trying to avoid my point, while changing the subject.
He can't respond to my point, so he avoids it.

I thought I was clear...Let's try again....

I'll repeat it again.
In today's society, "procreation" is not a requirement in any way, shape, or form.
Hinting that you think gays are a "birth defect" is a lame ploy to avoid the point and change the subject.
Start another thread for that crap.

I think gay being a "birth defect" starts at that attraction in the first place. A virgin gay is just as birth defected as a gay prostitute. Even if "society" came up with a scientific way to make kids in test tubes and grow them in a jar, homosexuality will still be a birth defect. Procreation is but one of the reasons I feel this way. You are over simplifying how I feel. This is when my "other" sexual orientations come in handy.

And another ploy of the anti-gay.
Introduce ridiculous comparisons, ignore the essential difference, and claim that just because we can prohibit eating dog meat we can do anything we damn well please.
Eating dog meat, or any meat you desire, IS NOT A RIGHT.
Marriage IS a right.

Food IS a right. All humans have the right to sustenance that they choose. If a human chooses to eat a dog, it's their business. That comparison is very valid since in Canada you CAN eat dog, but here you can't. I wonder why?

Funny how he mindlessly shifts into the SAME ARGUMENT I AM USING AGAINST HIM.
He has tried to make an excuse for allowing discrimination against gay couples, but refuses to use that excuse against any straight couple.

No, I only ask "why". Again, you can make up "what if's" all day, but you are VERY weak on the "why's". You might have a point.

__________________
Even if you hold the minority opinion, stick to your guns and go against the flow if that's what you truly believe. (CnRedd)

It's funny how you claim you don't dodge, but you JUST DID...
I point out that the word "tradition" is meaningless as a justification.
He turns around and repeats how he is trying to apply it.
Note, NOWHERE does he try to refute my point that "tradition" alone is insufficient justification.
Instead, he just repeats how he is trying to apply it.
To illustrate his dodging attempt:
Jack: That sheet of paper is not going to hold back the water.
Dave: But I am using the sheet of paper to stop the water from coming out this pipe.

No, what I'm saying is that I am using the heterosexual orientation as a basis for marriage because it is the only one that our species fully accomplishes it's biologic mission in the planet. Any other orientation is intrinsically defective and should not be included. THAT is why I call "man and woman" Traditional marriage. Again, I don't dodge.

Meaningless observation, completely ignoring my point.
Gay marriage IS topical.
I prove that.
And then he responds with THAT irrelevant reply...
We were just discussing "Traditional marriage" so far. Why don't you read back and get back to me. And again, the "birth" part was a comparison just like your unsubstantiated racial ones.

You racial analogies are still unsubstantiated, and you were the first to discuss "gay marriage". And now that's all we are talking about...hmmm. It wasn't THIS topical before. Talk about hiacking a thread.


Irrelevant.
There is no rational requirement that a couple have a child that shares the couple's DNA.
We don't require it for straight couples, so we can't require it for gay couples.

But there are NO children from gay couples EVER as a group. THAT'S the difference. The "homosexual" couple is sterile by design. Period. And again, that's concentrating on one aspects. The homosexual couple is "F"d from many facets.

If we're going to say that EVERY straight couple can get married, and NO gay couples can get married, we need to examine EXACTLY what we are doing.
YOU are trying to insist that we blindly generalize these issues by presuming straight couples are superior.
And when I point out that isn't always the case, you give THAT pointless comment?

Heterosexuality IS superior, an individual human may not be. That conept seems hard for you to grasp.

Where the heck did I say anything about "representative"?
I am trying to point out that your claims are not always true.
If we are truly interested in the best interests of the child, we shouldn't be applying rules MINDLESSLY and then ignoring when they don't fit.

Again, that wasn't my point...You said a abusing couple can get married..They sure can.....But they aren't representative of heterosexuality or parenthood. They are individuals. The best interests of an individual child may not be with their individual parents for many reasons, but it is recognized that the best interest of most children IS with their biologic parents. And removing them is a subject that is taken very seriously.

And there again you have fxashun's pointless double standards...
He talks about what is best for the kid when it suits his purpose, but when it is pointed out that his "best for the kid" is not always best for the kid, it's suddenly non-topical.


No I think it is an example of the bullshit that the pro-gay side spews to try and rationalize and pigeonhole their way into some resemblance of normality.

The guy can't hold his own in an honest discussion.

That's funny a liar saying honest. You got no clue.

So you don't know.
Why didn't you just say so and stop trying to insinuate knowledge of standards that are non-existent?

Actually I pointed out that the birth parents do have rights over adoptive ones in some states...Then you went and KILLED the birth parents...What kinda bullshit is that?

__________________
Even if you hold the minority opinion, stick to your guns and go against the flow if that's what you truly believe. (CnRedd)

Actually Fxashun, YOU are the one that initially brought it up...

If you remember:

That particular point needed correcting.

That wasn't necessarily referring to gay marriage. Humans have a capacity to want to do a lot of things. They are attracted sexually to kids, animals, and their own gender. That's why I specifically worded that sentence in that way. But I'm sure you wouldn't want me to expand upon THAT idea.

That's specifically why I said "something/one". I didn't want to limit myself, nor just how "f"'d up humans can be.

__________________
Even if you hold the minority opinion, stick to your guns and go against the flow if that's what you truly believe. (CnRedd)

Let's please not make inflammatory comments like this, m'kay?

That goes for all of you!!!