...and think whatever you like. No one's stopping you.
But the facts are the facts. Failure to reproduce is failure to reproduce.
Male/male unions and female/female unions are - - & + +.
Degenerate energy motions are degenerate energy motions.
Says you and all who believe your wave energy/vortex theories. Which would be, um, you.
Hence my post.
Males cant reproduce with males? Females cant reproduce with females? Alert the scientists!
Well no shit Sherlock.
If I extrapolate ridiculously, as you do below, should we also ban couples from marrying if one has too low a sperm count or the other cant carry to term?
This boils down to:
a) you think homosexuality is degenerate
b) I don't
Science bends for no liberal, feel good justifications and self-serving platitudes.
As a matter of fact, with even more thought - I think I am leaning in favor of the amendment.
People will still be able to make their mistakes but society will not have to put a stamp on it and endorse it as is being done from San Francisco to Boston.
Aye, there is the rub. Is society willing to condone same-sex marriage?
No one is outlawing homosexuality but rather the farce that such a union is a family.
Says you. You don't know the loving same-sex coupe living next door to me who are successfully raising an adopted girl.
Is she in a worse situation than a emnity-laden divorced relationship?
If everyone were homosexual/lesbian the planet earth would die off in about 100 years. Sure you could try to have some perverted society that artificially inseminates - but I think when one paints the picture very clearly one sees why voters have supported marriage as being between a man and a woman and why Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage act.
WTF does that have to do with the price of eggs?
Is gay marriage forcing anyone to become gay?
Is gay marriage forcing anyone to not get married?
We don't let folks marry their sisters or their daughters. If you allow gays to marry, you better allow Johnny and his sister - for they have a better claim on legitimacy. And after that When NAMBLA comes into town they'll push for the lowering of the marriage age so that their "unions" can be given the liberal stamp of approval. And if you want to marry your daughter later - well I'm sure the mayor of San Francisco wont hesitate to bless you.
Irrelevant, ludicrous and assinine. All in one paragraph. Well done.
A society that becomes anti-spiritual, narcisstic and lacks any morals is a society that wont last long.
Now you just sound like Chicken Little.
Morals are falling! Society is falling!
Again, it boils down to:
a) you think homosexuality is degenerate
b) I don't
Current Events » in reply to Hey you and Don can do whatever you like...
Oh please
The whole thread (101 posts)
- Gay marriage amendment
- The Inconvenient Question, revisited
- re: The Inconvenient Question, revisited
- OK, I'll bite
- The crux of that argument is polygamy
- First liberals had trouble with what the meaning of "is" is, now they're having trouble with the meaning of marriage.
- more to the point......
- A terrific error
- Huge. Huge. Mistake.
- What is intolerant is redefining marriage over the will of the people
- I've explained this once or twice before...
- What a coincidence!!!
- The terrible price of freedom
- Those Christians again -
- re: Those Christians
- No culture in Human history has allowed for same sex marriage.
- One explanation of the difference.
- re: If you marry someone who's of legal age in one state . . .
- re: Those Christians
- A BIG mistake.
- re: Gay marriage amendment
- re: Flap in California, or Nader's announcement . . . ?
- The Inconvenient Question, revisited
