| Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Senate rejects gay marriage ban | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jun 7 2006, 08:07 AM (2,301 Views) | |
| Moonbat | Jun 9 2006, 10:22 AM Post #151 |
![]()
Pisa-Carp
|
If you let homosexual couples adopt i don't have an objection, but i and many others will call it "marriage", because we disagree with you about what the word means. You say it's impossible according to your definition, but i have a different definition. I say it is possible. The question then becomes somewhat academic are the differences between a homosexual union "significant" or "insignificant" in comparison to a heterosexual union and what criterea do we use to decide significance. My answer is that the differences are ultimately insignificant and popular language will eventual adjust to reflect that. |
| Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Jun 9 2006, 10:34 AM Post #152 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
I'd draw the line at adoption -- no corporation should own persons. If there is ever a dearth of heterosexual couple able and willing to adopt, then we can discuss this. The optimal relationship for rearing children seems to be the natural order of man and woman -- children learn different skills and patterns from men and from women and this seems to be the optimal arrangement that society should promote in determining who can adopt. And adoption is clearly NOT a right in the conventional sense of human or civil rights. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| Moonbat | Jun 9 2006, 10:42 AM Post #153 |
![]()
Pisa-Carp
|
And there is our disagreement, a homosexual couple is not a corporation, they are couple.
Don't we have more children needing adoption than parents adopting right now?
Adoption agencies examine couples looking for an environment that would be beneficial to the child, there are examples of homosexual couples bring up children in a loving environment, with no obvious detriment to the child. Given this observation what is the basis of ruling them out apriori? |
| Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Jun 9 2006, 10:50 AM Post #154 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
No, many couples are having to go to China and Russia and Central/ South America to adopt. There is definitely a lack of adoption babies in the US. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| Steve Miller | Jun 9 2006, 10:53 AM Post #155 |
|
Bull-Carp
|
|
|
Wag more Bark less | |
![]() |
|
| The 89th Key | Jun 9 2006, 11:00 AM Post #156 |
|
Well, the marriage courses today are voluntary, and aren't required for marriage, unless you choose to go a specific route. Ideally, I think it would be good to "test" couples to see if they are ready for marriage and bringing a child into the world, but those test aren't realistic. They wouldn't be able to be implemented, and would be too controversial, riddled with scandal, IMO. I think there are many things society could do to make things better, but not all of them are realistic, able to be implemented without controversy, scandal, corruption, and lawsuits. |
![]() |
|
| The 89th Key | Jun 9 2006, 11:02 AM Post #157 |
|
Being able to play basketball, and PLAYING basketball for the knicks is a different thing. Gay men can have sex, but HAVING heterosexual sex is a different thing. |
![]() |
|
| Rick Zimmer | Jun 9 2006, 11:04 AM Post #158 |
|
Fulla-Carp
|
No thumps. You simply do not want to take your logic to where it leads. You want it to stop at a certain point so that you do not have to face the inherent illogic of it. No can do, Sir. If you state that procreation is a fundamental aspect of a valid marriage, then you have to accept the consequences of such a statement. |
| [size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size] | |
![]() |
|
| The 89th Key | Jun 9 2006, 11:05 AM Post #159 |
|
Good point, it would be too invasive to be ideal. |
![]() |
|
| Rick Zimmer | Jun 9 2006, 11:06 AM Post #160 |
|
Fulla-Carp
|
Ahem.... What happened to your argument about procreation? |
| [size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size] | |
![]() |
|
| Rick Zimmer | Jun 9 2006, 11:15 AM Post #161 |
|
Fulla-Carp
|
Of course, this is based only on your exclusionary definition of what marriage is; ignoring the fact that it is this very definition which is in dispute. Arguing that you have set the definition, that it is the only defintion that is possible and thus worthy of being used and therefore you have won the argument because no one else wants to accept this as the only possible definition boils down to... "I am right because I said I am right. You are all wrong because you disagree with me." Your logic on this fails, thumps. |
| [size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size] | |
![]() |
|
| The 89th Key | Jun 9 2006, 11:21 AM Post #162 |
|
Rick, Moonie, etc...what would your definition of marriage be? There obviously has to be one...what would you have it be? |
![]() |
|
| Jolly | Jun 9 2006, 11:25 AM Post #163 |
![]()
Geaux Tigers!
|
Tell ya what, guys. When you prove to me that a man can have sexual intercourse with another man, either rectally or orally, and impregnate that man through no artifical means, allowing him to concieve and carry a baby to full term, then deliver the aforemenetioned baby, I'll give your homosexual procreation argument more weight. That, and the book would be worth millions.... |
| The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros | |
![]() |
|
| AlbertaCrude | Jun 9 2006, 11:26 AM Post #164 |
|
Bull-Carp
|
While it is true that international adoptions are in increasing demand, I am not so certain that there is a shortage of North American babies available for adoption. Major deterrents here are that 1) the social welfare system discourages and even impedes mixed race adoptions; 2) in many jurisdictions the birthmother has the full legal right to reclaim maternal rights for up to one or even two years after the adoption; 2) adoptions must remain open- i.e. the child has the right to find out who his or her birth parents were and the reverse and; 3) sadly, many children available for adoption are HIV positive or damaged by their birth mother's substance abuse during perganacy. Not all adoptive parents are prepared to adopt special needs or disbaled babies voluntarily. My wife and I are presently in the process of adopting a child in Kazakhstan as Russia, Ukraine, Georgia and many Central American countries have recently closed their doors to international adoptions for a variety of sordid reasons. |
![]() |
|
| Steve Miller | Jun 9 2006, 11:29 AM Post #165 |
|
Bull-Carp
|
How about the "Registered Domestic Corporation" [tm] argument? |
|
Wag more Bark less | |
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | Jun 9 2006, 11:29 AM Post #166 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
I don't think it takes much proof to prove that a 70 year-old woman is incapable of bearing children. She's maybe ten years older than the oldest mother, in all of recorded history. So, since we know for a rock-solid, without-any-further-investigation certainty, that she is incapable of procreation ... based solely on the information already required on the marriage license, without any medical testing ... should she be barred from marriage, because she is no longer capable of procreating? |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Jun 9 2006, 11:33 AM Post #167 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
Rick: I am getting tired of keeping repeating the argument because of your limited attention span. Go back and read what I have already written about the reasonable expectation of procreative potency between persons of complementary sexuality -- and the complete lack of ANY procreative potency between homosexuals. It is not *my* exclusionary definition. It is common parlance since the dawn of civilization. And to call it "exclusionary" is the same to call it a "definition" -- all definitions are exclusionary-- that's the way language works. Evidently, that has never occurred to you before. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Jun 9 2006, 11:36 AM Post #168 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
Your "rock solid" argument already crumbled. Just last a 65 year old woman delivered a healthy baby, so the "post child bearing age" is not a strong argument, whereas NO homosexual couple has ever engendered a child between themselves. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| Rick Zimmer | Jun 9 2006, 11:37 AM Post #169 |
|
Fulla-Carp
|
I'll be happy to take the definition propsoed int he Consitutional Amendment which is the same as the one used in the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) with a minor rewording. Seems perfectly reasonable. It is "Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of |
| [size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size] | |
![]() |
|
| Jolly | Jun 9 2006, 11:38 AM Post #170 |
![]()
Geaux Tigers!
|
If I was politically advising the gay "rights" movement, this is the avenue I'd tell them to pursue. I don't think people will grant them all of the civil and legal benefits of marriage, but this is a heckuva a lot more than half of a loaf, and probably doable, even in the Bible Belt. |
| The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros | |
![]() |
|
| The 89th Key | Jun 9 2006, 11:39 AM Post #171 |
|
I really don't want to bring it up, buuuuuuut... What about family members? Also, if the gender is removed from the defintion. How much longer until the number restriction? |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Jun 9 2006, 11:39 AM Post #172 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
Why two? You seem to be hateful and bigoted against those who have a greater capacity to love more than one person. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | Jun 9 2006, 11:40 AM Post #173 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
Which is why I chose 70, but use 80 or 90 or 100, if you like. There is an age at which it is, so far, scientifically impossible. Moreover, I believe the 65 year-old required an ovum donor, did she not? And in vitro fertilization. So she's no different than a lesbian couple that gets pregnant with a sperm donor. She wasn't capable of doing it herself. Scientifically impossible. No different than a lesbian couple. |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| Rick Zimmer | Jun 9 2006, 11:46 AM Post #174 |
|
Fulla-Carp
|
I have read it -- over and over again. The simple fact you have moved to ignoring "procreation" and now say your point is nothing more than "complementary sexuality and past the age of puberty" is self evident that you cannot support your own logic any longer. And no need to go back and explain your theory of procreation again, thumps. We have all heard it and many of us reject it as lacking in logic when appropriately applied.
And the point of the discussion is to challenge this definition. So, please do not repeat the defintion and then claim that you are right. As I said, when you do so, all you are saying is "I am right because I said I am right. You are all wrong because you disagree with me." |
| [size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size] | |
![]() |
|
| Rick Zimmer | Jun 9 2006, 11:47 AM Post #175 |
|
Fulla-Carp
|
Would you personally support it, Jolly? |
| [size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size] | |
![]() |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic » |









10:41 PM Jul 12