Marriage and sexuality

[blackout]

infertility is, again, not a behavior and thus is not comparable to homosexual behavior

It makes no difference.

The infertile are in no way fundamental to our very survival and existence.
It's nothing personal. They're just not.

 

[Venatoris]

infertility is, again, not a behavior and thus is not comparable to homosexual behavior

I would still like to know where you stand on vasectomies. Should a man be allowed to get married after a vasectomy if he has never had children?

 

[blackout]

I would still like to know where you stand on vasectomies. Should a man be allowed to get married after a vasectomy if he has never had children?

This is certainly behavioral.

He should be stripped of his marital benefits.

 

[Venatoris]

Thanks UV, It's good to know that someone thinks my question was worthy of a response.
I have asked Madhatter this same question multiple times now. At first I thought he just missed my post but I'm beginning to think he is avoiding it.

 

[McBell]

Marriage is ruled by the supreme court to be fundamental to our very existence and survival.

You keep spouting this as though it is some sort of golden trump card for your argument.

What is truly funny is that you do not seem to understand that every time you spout it, you shoot yourself in the foot.

There is no other possible way to interpret that other than they were talking about propagation of the species.

what a load of steaming smelly bull ****!

If this were even remotely close to be true, you would be just as equally adamant to prevent infertile couples from marrying.

So we see that not only are you a hypocrite, but also a bold faced liar.

 

[enchanted_one1975]

I'm thinking madhatter should run for president against obama in the next election. Such a presidential trait of ignoring all direct questions and then spouting off meaningless, made up tidbits of info all to finally pretend you answered the question you were dodging all along.

 

[Mr Cheese]

It wouldn't matter if two heterosexual males tried to get married, they would be barred from doing so based on their gender..

:clap:clap

 

[Mr Cheese]

At first I thought he just missed my post but I'm beginning to think he is avoiding it.

he's just busy looking at pictures of naked kittens

 

[YamiB.]

infertility is, again, not a behavior and thus is not comparable to homosexual behavior

What did I say about homosexuality? When a person is denied a marriage due to same-sex marriage being banned it is based on their gender not their sexual orientation.

 

[McBell]

I'm thinking madhatter should run for president against obama in the next election. Such a presidential trait of ignoring all direct questions and then spouting off meaningless, made up tidbits of info all to finally pretend you answered the question you were dodging all along.

agreed.

 

[Autodidact]

False, Marriage as defined by the Supreme Court is fundamental to our very existence and survival.

NO, not defined, described. Two different things. However, gay marriage is just as fundamental to our existence and survival as straight marriage. That's what you're not getting.

A species that reproduces sexually needs a member of each sex to participate for procreation to occur. This is simply a natural consequence of our species having the sexes divided.

This reveals a telling and bizarre insecurity of gay-marriage opponents. They seem to feel that homosexuality is so delightful, so tempting and preferable to heterosexuality, that if we permit it, everyone will immediately convert to it. This may be why some people suspect them of being closet cases. I think it's a case of the tyranny of the discontinuous mind, that cannot grasp the idea of a spectrum. It's all or nothing for them. They cannot grasp the idea that we can let a few gay people marry without worrying about straight people suddenly giving up sexual intercourse. I really don't think that's a problem we need to worry about.

 

[Autodidact]

It is not that. Marriage is ruled by the supreme court to be fundamental to our very existence and survival.

There is no other possible way to interpret that other than they were talking about propagation of the species.

Yes there is. Families are where we rear children, which is fundamental to our existence and survival. That's why gay families deserve protection as well.

For some reason madhatter is only concerned with making babies, not with who takes care of them. Is this related to his theology in some way?

 

[Autodidact]

YamiB in response to your question about mother/father families being better for children.
http://www.clasp.org/admin/site/publications_states/files/0086.pdf
Homosexual Parenting: Placing Children at Risk
Print This - Homosexual Parenting: Is it Time for Change?

I don't see a single study in there that compares same-sex families with different-sex families and finds that the latter does better. Do you have one?

btw, did you know that the Family Research Council are known liars?

 

[Autodidact]

infertility is, again, not a behavior and thus is not comparable to homosexual behavior

1. So what?
2. But infertile people getting married is a behavior.
3. What about fertile heterosexuals who choose not to bear children, either to adopt or not have kids, should they be allowed to marry?

Hey, people on my side, there is a reason madhatter is avoiding this question like the plague. Please press him on it.

 

[Autodidact]

I would still like to know where you stand on vasectomies. Should a man be allowed to get married after a vasectomy if he has never had children?

Good question. Please ask it over and over, using bold, colors and large fonts if necessary, until he answers it. He knows his argument is bogus, as this question reveals.

 

[misanthropic_clown]

1. So what?
2. But infertile people getting married is a behavior.
3. What about fertile heterosexuals who choose not to bear children, either to adopt or not have kids, should they be allowed to marry?

Hey, people on my side, there is a reason madhatter is avoiding this question like the plague. Please press him on it.

I can only understand it as a matter of theology. That is, in the LDS faith, infertile couples may be given the opportunity to give birth in the afterlife. Married couples in the LDS faith are commanded to have children, and it is possible to imagine that if they are able to, but refuse to do so the marriage will be limited in the afterlife.

This would certainly provide backing for religious marriage to follow such a pattern, but I don't think it provides a convincing argument for how this should relate to civil marriages.

 

[Autodidact]

I can only understand it as a matter of theology. That is, in the LDS faith, infertile couples may be given the opportunity to give birth in the afterlife. Married couples in the LDS faith are commanded to have children, and it is possible to imagine that if they are able to, but refuse to do so the marriage will be limited in the afterlife.

This would certainly provide backing for religious marriage to follow such a pattern, but I don't think it provides a convincing argument for how this should relate to civil marriages.

My guess is that madhatter is not consciously aware of how his LDS upbringing is influencing his worldview. He places a huge value on just conceiving and bearing children, which the rest of us find a rather bizarre value system. I believe this is influenced by the positive value placed on this activity in LDS theology. This is linked to the idea of people having a pre-mortal existence, and then being sent to earth in physical form.

 

[Mr Cheese]

1. So what?
2. But infertile people getting married is a behavior.
3. What about fertile heterosexuals who choose not to bear children, either to adopt or not have kids, should they be allowed to marry?

Hey, people on my side, there is a reason madhatter is avoiding this question like the plague. Please press him on it.

there is a reason madhatter is avoiding this question like the plague

Yes he's a bigot and will use whatever he can to justify his hatred, but of course he will deny this, probably even to himself, he may even be bi sexual or gay himself, those that have the loudest voices often have something to hide...

Just look at all the conservative right wingers, that get found in sexually compromising positions, yet speak loudly against such things... essentially hypocrits are often the most vocal...in my opinion

 

[Mr Cheese]

I can only understand it as a matter of theology. That is, in the LDS faith, infertile couples may be given the opportunity to give birth in the afterlife. Married couples in the LDS faith are commanded to have children, and it is possible to imagine that if they are able to, but refuse to do so the marriage will be limited in the afterlife.

This would certainly provide backing for religious marriage to follow such a pattern, but I don't think it provides a convincing argument for how this should relate to civil marriages.

madhatter claims theology and any religious stance is not coloring his view point. He claims his entire premise is based on biology....

I'd have to agree on auto's summary in post 257

 

[madhatter85]

You keep spouting this as though it is some sort of golden trump card for your argument.

And same-sex marriage pundits don't spout off the same things over and over even though i have consistently proven that homosexual behavior is not fundamental to our existence and survival.