Why go on... and on about it...

No, dixon; of course it is not "biology".

Got a real answer, for once? (I suppose you don't.)

No, procreation does NOT appear to be "irrational" to me. I'm a product of the very thing you irrelevantly insert into virtually each and every post you submit.

I'm educated and I'm had biology and sciences. As far as I can tell, you just made more noise, and said NOTHING pertinent... as usual.

Sorry, but that's just silly. (What is "heterophobia"? It's a word you made up and has no accepted meaning.)

 

It is the biology of procreation that is biased by only occuring to heterosexual couples.

 

Youll find your answer in the 4 definitions. Definitions not based upon "irrational animus and homophobia" but instead based upon the biology pf procreation

 

As you present data, it typically winds up being irrelevant. I think we are done trying to discuss this. Even so, I hope others will continue to challenge you (as I will from time to time).

 

You informed me over a year ago you werent willing to discuss this and repeatedly done so since then. We got it. No need to remind us again and again and again.

 

Are you ready to make one pertinent and reasonable point? And no, I don't care that you want to control what I say in this forum, I'm not bailing out due to your displeasure.

 

You are factually incorrect - not all heterosexual couples have that ability, yet marriage is legally granted to all of them regardless. So we know procreational ability isn't required.

 

I never claimed all heterosexual couples have the ability to procreate not the requirement to do so, sooooo just what is it you think I am wrong about.

 

Your mention of "procreation" in these types of threads... is largely a waist of people's time.

The mileage you get out of it is incredible. Essentially, you make a noise about it (procreation), and people are drawn to it like flies to poop. But on the other side of that, I suppose it is good that they shoot your thoughts down regularly... for the sake of those visiting or lurking.

Simply put, "procreation" (or incest, as you often submit) has nothing to do with the marital rights which are denied homosexual couples.

 

That has proven to be true, at least for a certain number of homophobic individuals.

Yes. I personally focus upon this, because I'm activistic about garnering equal rights for homosexual people/couples.

I think it is because in the minds of some, DEHUMANIZING homosexual people kind of sets a "stage"; or primes an environment for the purpose of vilifying or assailing them in some way(s). Without a doubt, the goal of some is to 'punish' homosexuality and homosexual people. That irrational animus should be FOUGHT AGAINST, and never tolerated (IMO).

Sadly and unfortunately... SOME people have been indoctrinated in such a way, that they believe they MUST PLAY GOD. All I can say, is that they shall reap exactly what they sow (sooner or later).

It's called "homophobia", this obsession and negativity toward what is natural in a significant number of human beings. Homosexuality is not going away or getting fixed by nature (where it comes from); science may offer certain options for parents or individuals who do not want anything to do with homosexuality... but by and large, homosexuality is here to stay.

 

Maybe so, but in the courts it has been a resounding success. Thats why in 44 states, marriage is limited to a man and a woman.

 

Except for the fact that bans on same-sex marriage have only been challenged in a small number of those states, with the most recent challenge to such a law (Prop 8 ) having been successful. Where those laws were upheld the judges which did so decided to invoke preconceived notions and irrelevant historical points about marriage, and they had to do that for one reason and one reason only - because there is no basis in marriage law itself by which to deny it to same-sex couples. Laughable.

 

if the gay rights people were to put aside the nonsense of focusing on segregation based upon a sexual act, and instead, focus on the over-reach of govt and demand fairness FOR ALL (not just those who have gay sex) then I would stand shoulder to shoulder demanding govt to back off.

Now, I'm sure divorce attorneys, accountants and tax atty's would fight this tooth and nail. Why make things simple and equitable? Why do what's right?

Honestly, it begins by throwing your support to those who think govt is TOO BIG and not that govt is the solution

It's akin to those who demand civil rights (blacks) blindly following Democrats when it was the GOP who got civil rights passed and the Democrats opposed it.

Y'all say you want one thing but support a political party who are not motivated to do what's right.

 

Actually, its been challenged in almost all those states. Usually, summarily dismissed at the lowest level courts, so you rarely hear about it. Whenever a court case decides in favor of gay marriage, it instantly becomes national news.

 

Their goal is winning "respect" from society for gays and "dignity" for gays. Marriage for anybody who wanted it wouldnt accomplish that.

 

I have posed that question several times

the replies I get are that "acceptance" is not what is desired however

if you read the content of many posts within this sub-section you will be lead to believe that "acceptance" is the goal and for it to be legislated.

The most fair way is for govt to get completely out of marriage.

 

Based on those you've cited it's only a few. I'd like to see evidence it's been challenged in "almost all" of those 44 states.

 

Their main goal is rights actually.

 

But since that is not likely to happen (and reasonable people realize this), it makes sense and is absolutely justified that homosexuals and their advocates would seek the more efficacious route of allowing homosexual couples to marry legally, as heterosexuals do.

 

I disagree with this - most of the gay people that I know just want to be treated equally, noting more nothing less. We do not care about acceptance (although it would be nice I realize there are always people that will hate you for some reason - some hate me because I am white, some because I am a Christian, some because I am gay) we care about being seen equal in the eyes of the law - along with the governmental protections and benefits that come along with this.

I, personally, have no desire to marry my partner - but I know many that would love nothing more than to be able to enjoy this. I have never seen what the big deal is but whatever...

I do not understand how some of the people on here (the rational ones which excludes people that start with a D or K) can sit there and say that someone that has 5 kids out of wedlock with 3 different men, has been married 4 times (divorced 4 times), and pushes their kids off onto the system is more deserving of the right to marry then two women that have been together for 15 years and have a child they wish to adopt together (which they got from the system, left behind from the mother above).

The irrationality of it blows my mind. I wish the government would have left it as a religious institution between two people committing their self with god. This was destroyed when the government got involved - once it because a tax break it lost all meaning. Unfortunately this is more than likely irreversible.

If the government stays involved (which it will) there is no sound reasoning to deny the same rights across the board.

 

can I get an Amen

oh, if you are a Giants fan, then I found a reason to hate you

 

Amen, to that.

 

Not to mention, that the court cases generally, explicitly state this as their goal. From the In Re marriage case. A Constitutional right to respect and dignity for gays. ABSURD!

 

The focus as far as the Constitution is concerned is more the denial of thousands of rights to a type of couple based purely on their gender and the fact those same rights are granted to another identically situated couple (as far as the procreation argument is concerned) for no other reason than their genders (or to quote you - "the type of sex they have").

 

As do I.

The quagmire is starting to get deeper and deeper in Canada, with the justice opinion on a divorce of a gay couple. one from England and the other from America, married in Canada.

This is pre Harper, however he will be in the news by the activist gay community and leftists in general, as they have already been citing such absurdities as now women will lose the right to vote etc.

Such things as sloppy same sex laws (that say amongst other things) about one them having to reside in Canada for a year, which probably few did.

Not originally Harpers issue, but the heat is on him as if he tyrannically staged this, and through the activist gays leading the charge of all the leftists, it is going to get deeper and deeper into soveriegn/global issues and the law therein that pertain to foriegners getting married in Canada.

Again...gimme special rights is the apparently inexhaustable mantra.