johncocker Posted March 17, 2012 Share Posted March 17, 2012 Okay. We understand that. People are different. Black people are different. They can marry. Tall people are different. They can marry. Gay people are different. Ooops, the pattern falls apart here. Odd that. Unless it's a gay man or a gay woman, then they're different again. One difference add one difference = "double different"? No, a fertile man and woman can produce a child. And this piece of information leads us to conclude what? First of all, sexual behavior and race are essentially different realities. A man and a woman wanting to marry may be different in their characteristics: one may be black, the other white; one rich, the other poor; or one tall, the other short. None of these differences are insurmountable obstacles to marriage. The two individuals are still man and woman, and thus the requirements of nature are respected. Same-sex “marriage” opposes nature. Two individuals of the same sex, regardless of their race, wealth, stature, erudition or fame, will never be able to marry because of an insurmountable biological impossibility. Secondly, inherited and unchangeable racial traits cannot be compared with non-genetic and changeable behavior. There is simply no analogy between the interracial marriage of a man and a woman and the “marriage” between two individuals of the same sex. It Does Not Create a Family but a Naturally Sterile Union Traditional marriage is usually so fecund that those who would frustrate its end must do violence to nature to prevent the birth of children by using contraception. It naturally tends to create families. On the contrary, same-sex “marriage” is intrinsically sterile. If the “spouses” want a child, they must circumvent nature by costly and artificial means or employ surrogates. The natural tendency of such a union is not to create families. conclusion Therefore, we cannot call a same-sex union marriage and give it the benefits of true marriage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Sleeps Posted March 17, 2012 Share Posted March 17, 2012 sexual behavior and race are essentially different realities. Realities? *confused* and thus the requirements of nature are respected. Nature doesn't have any requirements. None. Not one. Marriage is a human construction. Thus your next part is arse-gravy Same-sex “marriage” opposes nature. Two individuals of the same sex [...] will never be able to marry because of an insurmountable biological impossibility. Biology now. I studied biology for 2 years. I don't remember the part where plants married, or little wasps had their friends around for a ceremony. Marriage is a human construction. I can't even be bothered with the rest. T'is equal to vomiting on a wedding dress because mucky yellow is your favourite colour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johncocker Posted March 17, 2012 Share Posted March 17, 2012 (edited) ...................................duplictae post Edited March 17, 2012 by johncocker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Sleeps Posted March 17, 2012 Share Posted March 17, 2012 (edited) Is there an echo? Ah. We were subjected to a double dose. Edited March 17, 2012 by Chris_Sleeps Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quisquose Posted March 17, 2012 Share Posted March 17, 2012 Ha ha. So much fail. If you're going to cut'n paste from The Daily Mash, or wherever, then it's good manners to provide the link. Still, very funny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
altus Posted March 17, 2012 Share Posted March 17, 2012 First of all, sexual behavior and race are essentially different realities. A man and a woman wanting to marry may be different in their characteristics: one may be black, the other white; one rich, the other poor; or one tall, the other short. None of these differences are insurmountable obstacles to marriage. The two individuals are still man and woman, and thus the requirements of nature are respected. Same-sex “marriage” opposes nature. Two individuals of the same sex, regardless of their race, wealth, stature, erudition or fame, will never be able to marry because of an insurmountable biological impossibility. Secondly, inherited and unchangeable racial traits cannot be compared with non-genetic and changeable behavior. There is simply no analogy between the interracial marriage of a man and a woman and the “marriage” between two individuals of the same sex. It Does Not Create a Family but a Naturally Sterile Union Traditional marriage is usually so fecund that those who would frustrate its end must do violence to nature to prevent the birth of children by using contraception. It naturally tends to create families. On the contrary, same-sex “marriage” is intrinsically sterile. If the “spouses” want a child, they must circumvent nature by costly and artificial means or employ surrogates. The natural tendency of such a union is not to create families. conclusion Therefore, we cannot call a same-sex union marriage and give it the benefits of true marriage. Ignoring the fact that fancying members of the same sex is still natural - people don't choose to be gay. If you're arguing against same sex marriage because it is "intrinsically sterile" then your are also arguing that infertile hetrosexual couples shouldn't marry because their relationships are also "intrinsically sterile". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted March 17, 2012 Share Posted March 17, 2012 First of all, sexual behavior and race are essentially different realities. A man and a woman wanting to marry may be different in their characteristics: one may be black, the other white; one rich, the other poor; or one tall, the other short. None of these differences are insurmountable obstacles to marriage. The two individuals are still man and woman, and thus the requirements of nature are respected. Ahh.. the old "nature" argument. I take it you don't know that homosexuality occurs in nature? Same-sex “marriage” opposes nature. Two individuals of the same sex, regardless of their race, wealth, stature, erudition or fame, will never be able to marry because of an insurmountable biological impossibility. See above Secondly, inherited and unchangeable racial traits cannot be compared with non-genetic and changeable behavior. Oh you're one of those who thinks that homosexuality is a choice? There is simply no analogy between the interracial marriage of a man and a woman and the “marriage” between two individuals of the same sex. It Does Not Create a Family but a Naturally Sterile Union You seem to be confusing marriage with procreation, you shouldn't, it makes you look silly. Traditional marriage is usually so fecund that those who would frustrate its end must do violence to nature to prevent the birth of children by using contraception. It naturally tends to create families.[ On the contrary, same-sex “marriage” is intrinsically sterile. If the “spouses” want a child, they must circumvent nature by costly and artificial means or employ surrogates. The natural tendency of such a union is not to create families. Again, you're really getting your definitions mixed up here. Google "procreation" and google "marriage" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted March 17, 2012 Share Posted March 17, 2012 Not discrimination but different and equal. :hihi::hihi: I can't be bothered to go through it all again. From what I can see, you haven't been through it at all, you're basically just saying "it shouldn't be allowed because I don't like it". You're entitled to your opinion but that in itself isn't a REASON for not allowing it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johncocker Posted March 17, 2012 Share Posted March 17, 2012 Realities? *confused* arse-gravy I can't even be bothered with the rest. T'is equal to vomiting on a wedding dress because mucky yellow is your favourite colour. how very very dare you :o:o I seem to have evoked a gay tantrum:hihi: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Sleeps Posted March 17, 2012 Share Posted March 17, 2012 Traditional marriage is usually so fecund that those who would frustrate its end must do violence to nature to prevent the birth of children by using contraception. I like this. I really like this. You've swapped the word "sex" for "marriage" and you're trying to pass it off like we've not noticed. Did anyone here wear a condom during their marriage ceremony? Hands up. Don't be shy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts