You "brought up" natural childbirth, and then that is essentially ALL you talked about.
I would love to see you try to explain what the "comparison" supposedly is...

Don't even try to compare the two. Mine was an example in one post. I didn't dive head-long into primarily discussing the issue of the "comparison" in subsequent posts.


Irrelevant.
Quite frankly, it doesn't matter if we can definitively prove whites are better than blacks.
That doesn't mean that blacks shouldn't have equal rights.


And considering that "biological basis" is typically ignored in today's society, your observation is irrelevant.
Do we prevent over-age women from marrying even though they are past the age of procreation? No.
Do we annul the marriage of couples who openly state that they intend on not having kids? No.

Your observation is essentially coincidental in today's society. Not a requirement.

It's like noting that people have two legs. But just because somebody may have lost one or both their legs doesn't mean they stop being a person...


I'm shocked you even attempted that.
So we can't eat "dog meat", so that justifies the RESTRICTION of a recognized BASIC HUMAN RIGHT?
Balderdash.

You might as well say "We can prevent people from driving 65 MPH in a school zone, ergo we can prevent black people from voting."
There are different rationales involved, with different justifications.
Different requirements on necessary justification to keep the law.


That's about the lamest dodge of an analogy I ever saw.
The point is that "tradition" justifies nothing, in and of itself.
"Tradition" is meaningless.
If the only reason we are continuing a practice discriminating against humans is "tradition", then the discrimination should end.


Zoinks!
Are you freakin' serious?
Did you just say what you just said?

Quite frankly, the issue of "traditional marriage" is about boundaries for marriage. And whether or not that includes "gay marriage" is obviously a part of that discussion. Especially considering this is in the "Civil Rights" section.
If you don't want to talk about the CIVIL RIGHTS aspect of "traditional marriage", maybe you should open your own "traditional marriage" thread elsewhere.
If you can't see the difference between talking about "gay marriage" on a "traditional marriage" thread, and talking about DIFFERENT TYPES OF BIRTH on a "traditional marriage" thread, then you have revealed a lot more about yourself than I could ever hope to achieve.

But continuing, can you elaborate on your claim of identifying "why marriage should remain between man and woman"?


Of course, that brings up the issue of "whose standards".
We can then determine that maybe people's standards declaring marriage as needing to be only same race should be "optimum".
Your approach reeks of egalitarianism, ignoring real life examples that destroy any pretense of "optimum" by making sweeping generalizations.

A gay couple that raises foster kids can't get married, even though their capability to raise kids is exemplary.
But a couple that has repeatedly abused their kid can get married...

And going a step further, as far as "optimum", why the heck aren't we concerned with them either?


That's one pretty pathetic example which essentially dodges the point of this thread.
Suppose the natural parents are dead.
Should John and Jane, who adopt Jimmy, have fewer rights to Dan and Daria, who procreated David?


This is ACTUALLY a comparison to the real topic I am talking about.
I can directly tie back to the topic of the thread with this example.
This is not "derailing" it at all.

I am demonstrating the fallacy of your thinking with regards to "traditional family", by showing some NON-traditional families.
Birthing babies and the techniques for it has ridiculously little correlation to "traditional family".

My personal opinion.

1) The discussion of womans rights is relevant to this as it has a direct impact on the relationship between a man and woman.
2) The discussion of interracial marriage is relevant as it has both a cultural impact and social impact on the marriage.
3) The discussion of gay marriage is relevant as it is the current catalyst for the discussion of traditional marriage.

The method in which children are delivered into this world has nothing to do with traditional marriage. Timing (before/after marriage) is legitimate but the method is not.

Lets focus on the marriage debate instead of a medical one.

__________________

Place number one..You are a liar, it was always the last question answered in my posts. If I had not addressed the points, you would have been accusing me of "dodging". BS.
Place number 2. That's over..


Don't even try to compare the two. Mine was an example in one post. I didn't dive head-long into primarily discussing the issue of the "comparison" in subsequent posts.

Nor did I intend to. I was rebutting posts directed at me. Isn't that what we do here?

Irrelevant.
Quite frankly, it doesn't matter if we can definitively prove whites are better than blacks.
That doesn't mean that blacks shouldn't have equal rights.

Actually if we could prove that simply being one race resulted in a capability that made you better than someone of another race, I would be glad to entertain that. We know that the genders are different in a way, and there differences in some accommodations. There is a distinct difference between the homosexual union and the hetero one. And they should be considered "different".
Can you think of a racial difference that might support different rights between all the many races in this country? Or are you typing from your anus?

And considering that "biological basis" is typically ignored in today's society, your observation is irrelevant.

Only to homosexuals...

Do we prevent over-age women from marrying even though they are past the age of procreation? No.

Menopause is a natural occurring life phase. We know the why's and how's. Why wouldn't older Americans be allowed to "marry"?

Do we annul the marriage of couples who openly state that they intend on not having kids? No.

Why would we? They are still man and woman...If one of them got a sex change and wanted to legally change their gender, that might be a legal issue though.

Your observation is essentially coincidental in today's society. Not a requirement.
It's like noting that people have two legs. But just because somebody may have lost one or both their legs doesn't mean they stop being a person...

But if they are born with one leg, they are still a person, but they have a birth defect...hint hint. And they have a right to try and "fix" it. The government is not gonna sponsor someone to cut a healthy leg off though. I have never said that a homosexual person is not a "person", they just have a "problem".

I'm shocked you even attempted that.
So we can't eat "dog meat", so that justifies the RESTRICTION of a recognized BASIC HUMAN RIGHT?
Balderdash.

If you come from a region where dog meat is consumed, then that IS a restriction of your "right" to consume any food that is healthy. And there is nothing intrinsically wrong with eating dog meat. Our restriction of that right is something that our society has deemed appropriate. That was my point. And I think the aversion to homosexuality is much more inherent in our species than the aversion to eating a dog...or a cat. Which is tasty by the way.

You might as well say "We can prevent people from driving 65 MPH in a school zone, ergo we can prevent black people from voting."
There are different rationales involved, with different justifications.
Different requirements on necessary justification to keep the law.

We could...But "why" would you keep black people from voting but allow all of the other races to do so? Anybody can fart out little comparisons like that, but the hard part is justifying them. Homosexuals should not call their union a marriage because it is a observable and demonstrable human aberration. Now why should black people be singled out as not being able to vote? I'll wait.


That's about the lamest dodge of an analogy I ever saw.
The point is that "tradition" justifies nothing, in and of itself.
"Tradition" is meaningless.
If the only reason we are continuing a practice discriminating against humans is "tradition", then the discrimination should end.

I don't dodge...Tradition has many meanings...And in this one, in the context of what you and I are speaking and in my other posts, it's obvious that I mean "man and woman". We have no reason to throw THAT "tradition" away because a few abnormal people decide they want to get "married" too. IMHO they don't qualify...unless they marry someone of the opposite gender.


Zoinks!
Are you freakin' serious?
Did you just say what you just said?
Quite frankly, the issue of "traditional marriage" is about boundaries for marriage. And whether or not that includes "gay marriage" is obviously a part of that discussion. Especially considering this is in the "Civil Rights" section.
If you don't want to talk about the CIVIL RIGHTS aspect of "traditional marriage", maybe you should open your own "traditional marriage" thread elsewhere.
If you can't see the difference between talking about "gay marriage" on a "traditional marriage" thread, and talking about DIFFERENT TYPES OF BIRTH on a "traditional marriage" thread, then you have revealed a lot more about yourself than I could ever hope to achieve.

Actually, you were first to actually bring "gay marriage" into this thread..read back. 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.

But continuing, can you elaborate on your claim of identifying "why marriage should remain between man and woman"?

Read above...


Of course, that brings up the issue of "whose standards".
We can then determine that maybe people's standards declaring marriage as needing to be only same race should be "optimum".
Your approach reeks of egalitarianism, ignoring real life examples that destroy any pretense of "optimum" by making sweeping generalizations.

There are no real life examples of a homosexual couple having a baby that shares their genetic material. There are no real life examples of a homosexual couple having coitus. The "optimum" is already there. There is no reason for a homosexual couple to "marry". They can recognize their union any way they want to, just don't call it a "marriage" because it isn't and never has been such.

A gay couple that raises foster kids can't get married, even though their capability to raise kids is exemplary.
But a couple that has repeatedly abused their kid can get married...

That's using a negative to justify your means. Unless you want me to make a "bug chaser" or Larry Craig and his ilk a representative for gay people? But I don't think you want to go there do you?

And going a step further, as far as "optimum", why the heck aren't we concerned with them either?

We are as a society..it's illegal to abuse your kids. But "child abuse" is not the topic of this thread.

That's one pretty pathetic example which essentially dodges the point of this thread.
Suppose the natural parents are dead.
Should John and Jane, who adopt Jimmy, have fewer rights to Dan and Daria, who procreated David?

I don't dodge...If there are any rights that are specific to natural parents, they won't have them...But I can't think of any in your example. Why is your example more valid than mine though? I gave an example how the adoptive parents right CAN be legally interrupted. So obviously SOME rights are weaker.

This is ACTUALLY a comparison to the real topic I am talking about.
I can directly tie back to the topic of the thread with this example.
This is not "derailing" it at all.
I am demonstrating the fallacy of your thinking with regards to "traditional family", by showing some NON-traditional families.
Birthing babies and the techniques for it has ridiculously little correlation to "traditional family".

Actually in my "Traditional family" that was quite a decision to make...But I wouldn't really expect you to know anything about 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)

I have yet to see a post that "focused" on a medical issue. Maybe you ought to link us to a post that was based on a medical topic....I'll wait.

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

Instead of reposting your arguments sir, I'll allow the readers to see for themselves the references to what is medically correct (ie. 'natural birth' and the like). I did not say that your posts focused on these issues, I'm merely saying that the issue of 'natural' birth and the like have no bearing on the make up or function of marriage.

__________________

No what you said was

Lets focus on the marriage debate instead of a medical one.


When no one at all focused on any medical debate. I'm just curious what led to that part of your post. I only asked for a link to any post that focused on it....should be easy since it was so pervasive that you had to mention it. I'll try to avoid that type of pervasive off-topic argument, but I can't see it. Maybe I missed it.

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

This is simply a case of people with too much time on their hands. Stressing things that don't really effect them. They are just unhappy because they can't make they world conform to their notions of tradition. Seventy five years ago it wasn't unusual for two fifteen year olds to get married. Things change. Life's too short for this kind of whining IMHO. If two people are commited to one another who am I to interfere? So if your a guy and you don't want to marry another guy I doubt if anyone will force you to.(Unless you knock him up)

__________________
Talking about music is like dancing about architecture

Though I personally will never pursue a marriage due to my Catholicism, I cannot see why others would be so interested in what goes on between another couple. I often find myself thinking when confronted with one of these people who believes gay marriage will lessen the importance of their marriage "well, if you really feel that way, you go right home and tell your wife or husband that you dwell on homosexuals so much that you feel less married to him/her when gays want to get married. The reaction on the spouse's face would have to be priceless.

How the heck does that in any way place me as a "liar".
I never said anything which contradicts that claim.


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


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.


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.


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.

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.


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.

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

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.


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"...



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...


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.

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.


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'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.


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.


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.


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.


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.[/b]


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.


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?


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.


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.


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


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

When something off topic is repetitively mentioned, it detracts from the real debate. You don't have to focus on the medical issue for it to be detracting to the overall issue. Mentioning it several times knowing full well that it has nothing to do with marriage is a distraction tactic. Did you employ it intentionally? I don't know. I wouldn't accuse you of doing it intentionally. I'm merely stating that we should focus on the marriage issue instead of paying any time to this unrelated medical analogy that we have now spent WAY more time on than it was worth.

__________________