Same sex marraige resumes in California

[zsdersw]

And?

No one is saying there is a defect with the sperm. They are saying there is a defect with the sperm delivery.

Delivery defect? A gay man's penis and testes are just as capable of delivering sperm to female eggs as a straight man's penis and testes.

A gay man won't be putting his sperm anywhere near female eggs. So no reproduction will be taking place.

Some do:

Some also choose to have their sperm put near or mixed with female eggs without intercourse.

 

[shortylickens]

And the meltdown begins.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013...-illegitimate-decisions-on-same-sex-marriage/

That guy sounds like a classic right-wing christian nutball.
I have no interest in his opinions, he's too far out in crazy land.

As for this thread: I am amazed at the number of people who have no clue what marriage is all about.
It was started as a way for men to preserve property rights and if you look at how things are now, its kind of the same way.

 

[nehalem256]

Delivery defect? A gay man's penis and testes are just as capable of delivering sperm to female eggs as a straight man's penis and testes.

I didn't say it was a physical defect.

A gay man has no interest in putting his penis into a woman's vagina and it is therefore much less likely for his sperm to reach a female's eggs.

Some do:

Some also choose to have their sperm put near or mixed with female eggs without intercourse.

Then it sounds like they are better characterized as bi-sexual. Also seems a bit of a contradiction with the idea that "straight" men don't choose to be straight.

 

[zsdersw]

I didn't say it was a physical defect.

A gay man has no interest in putting his penis into a woman's vagina and it is therefore much less likely for his sperm to reach a female's eggs.

That's not a defect.

Then it sounds like they are better characterized as bi-sexual. Also seems a bit of a contradiction with the idea that "straight" men don't choose to be straight.

No one chooses who they're sexually attracted to.

 

[nehalem256]

That's not a defect.

How is it not if we define defect as something that lessens an organisms chances of reproducing?

If you are not interested in having sex with people of the opposite gender clearly you are less likely to reproduce.

 

[busydude]

The fact that people think there is still debate in scientific community and quote from FRC shows how scientifically inclined they are.

 

[busydude]

Same to you. Yet you continue to argue for it as I argue against it.



You continue to ignore how our bodies are designed. If there is some proven benefit to being gay in a Darwinian sense please share it, because I don't know of one.

Designed by who?

 

[VashHT]

How is it not if we define defect as something that lessens an organisms chances of reproducing?

If you are not interested in having sex with people of the opposite gender clearly you are less likely to reproduce.

Because not every human has to reproduce, not to mention the fact that a society with 100% homosexuals would still be able to reproduce thanks to science.

You've failed to show any reason why it's a defect to not have children, the vast majority of the human race is still having multiple kids and the world population continues to grow despite the scourge of non-reproducing homosexuals that people on here seem to think exists.

 

[zsdersw]

How is it not if we define defect as something that lessens an organisms chances of reproducing?

Because it doesn't lessen that organisms chance of reproducing.

 

[nehalem256]

Because not every human has to reproduce, not to mention the fact that a society with 100% homosexuals would still be able to reproduce thanks to science.

And if we invent fully functioning mechanical arms it wouldn't mean that people born without arms did not have a birth defect. It just means it is correctable.

You've failed to show any reason why it's a defect to not have children, the vast majority of the human race is still having multiple kids and the world population continues to grow despite the scourge of non-reproducing homosexuals that people on here seem to think exists.

Because from an evolutionary perspective if you don't reproduce you are defective. An abnormality that reduces the reproductive fitness is a defect.

 

[nehalem256]

Because it doesn't lessen that organisms chance of reproducing.

If you have no interest in having sex with someone of the opposite sex how does that not lessen your chances of reproducing?

 

[zsdersw]

If you have no interest in having sex with someone of the opposite sex how does that not lessen your chances of reproducing?

You don't need to have sex to reproduce, but aside from that some men identify as "gay" even though they occasionally, even if only very rarely, have sex with women.

Does the gender you're predominantly sexually attracted to determine your sexual orientation or does the gender that you predominantly have sex with determine it?

 

[VashHT]

And if we invent fully functioning mechanical arms it wouldn't mean that people born without arms did not have a birth defect. It just means it is correctable.



Because from an evolutionary perspective if you don't reproduce you are defective. An abnormality that reduces the reproductive fitness is a defect.

Not true at all, people can contribute all kinds of things to society without reproducing at all, there is no reason that someone has to reproduce to be useful to society. There are many examples of totally useless people in our society who have no trouble reproducing at all.

As for your mechanical arms statement, it sounds like you'd at least agree that if it is a defect (which I don't believe it is) that at least you admit science has solved the "problem". If that's the case then why are you still so opposed to it? Besides this has absolutely nothing to do with marriage, we don't bar people with physical defects from marriage so why do you think it should be ok for another so called defect to be barred from marriage? Your argument isn't even consistent within itself, you pull out random examples that counteract your claims and defeat your own argument.

 

[Murloc]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naked_mole_rat

interesting example of a social mammal in which reproduction is not important for most females, yet they are useful.

 

[nehalem256]

You don't need to have sex to reproduce, but aside from that some men identify as "gay" even though they occasionally, even if only very rarely, have sex with women.

Does the gender you're predominantly sexually attracted to determine your sexual orientation or does the gender that you predominantly have sex with determine it?

If you sometimes have sex with women and you identify as "gay" you are wrong; you are bisexual.

Defect doesn't mean wholly unable to reproduce. It means negatively impacts reproductive fitness.

Not true at all, people can contribute all kinds of things to society without reproducing at all, there is no reason that someone has to reproduce to be useful to society. There are many examples of totally useless people in our society who have no trouble reproducing at all.

And there are people with birth defects that contribute to society.

As for your mechanical arms statement, it sounds like you'd at least agree that if it is a defect (which I don't believe it is) that at least you admit science has solved the "problem". If that's the case then why are you still so opposed to it? Besides this has absolutely nothing to do with marriage, we don't bar people with physical defects from marriage so why do you think it should be ok for another so called defect to be barred from marriage? Your argument isn't even consistent within itself, you pull out random examples that counteract your claims and defeat your own argument.

Because marriage is about a man and a woman procreating. That is the reason society created it. It did not create marriage in order to give government benefits to couples for no reason.

Just because science can allow a gay man to reproduce with a woman doesn't mean he should be allowed to marry a man.

 

[Craig234]

nm for now.

 

[VashHT]

If you sometimes have sex with women and you identify as "gay" you are wrong; you are bisexual.

Defect doesn't mean wholly unable to reproduce. It means negatively impacts reproductive fitness.



And there are people with birth defects that contribute to society.



Because marriage is about a man and a woman procreating. That is the reason society created it. It did not create marriage in order to give government benefits to couples for no reason.

Just because science can allow a gay man to reproduce with a woman doesn't mean he should be allowed to marry a man.

You're just repeating something ad nauseum that you have no proof for. There is absolutely no requirement for procreation for marriage, you know it yet you keep trotting out this tired argument. You have no idea why marriage was created either, please show some proof that it was created originally for the sole purpose of procreation.

As for your last statement, just because you don't think homosexuality is right does not mean they shouldn't be allowed to marry, your personal feelings are not the basis for law in this country.

 

[zsdersw]

If you sometimes have sex with women and you identify as "gay" you are wrong; you are bisexual.

That's a pretty authoritative statement from someone who is entirely ignorant of human sexuality.

Defect doesn't mean wholly unable to reproduce. It means negatively impacts reproductive fitness.

That's a matter of degree that you're cherry-picking to suit your ignorant argument.

 

[Craig234]

I have a question for those who don't support equality on marriage rights:

Do you understand you are harming people with that position?

Putting aside that you feel you have a reason for that position, I'm wondering if you view it as not harmful - like denying cigarettes to kids - or you understand it is harm?

 

[nehalem256]

You're just repeating something ad nauseum that you have no proof for. There is absolutely no requirement for procreation for marriage, you know it yet you keep trotting out this tired argument. You have no idea why marriage was created either, please show some proof that it was created originally for the sole purpose of procreation.

http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/20...ation-and-historical-amnesia/?ref=rossdouthat

If gay marriage opponents had essentially invented a procreative foundation for marriage in order to justify opposing same-sex wedlock, it would indeed be telling evidence of a movement groping for reasons to justify its bigotry. But of course that essential connection was assumed in Western law and culture long before gay marriage emerged as a controversy or a cause. You don’t have to look very hard to find quotes (like the ones collected in this Heritage Foundation brief) from jurists, scholars, anthropologists and others, writing in historical contexts entirely removed from the gay marriage debate, making the case that “the first purpose of matrimony, by the laws of nature and society, is procreation” (that’s a California Supreme Court ruling in 1859), describing the institution of marriage as one “founded in nature, but modified by civil society: the one directing man to continue and multiply his species, the other prescribing the manner in which that natural impulse must be confined and regulated” (that’s William Blackstone), and acknowledging that “it is through children alone that sexual relations become important to society, and worthy to be taken cognizance of by a legal institution” (that’s the well-known reactionary Bertrand Russell).

For the record I will point out the Bertrand Russell was an Atheist.

As for your last statement, just because you don't think homosexuality is right does not mean they shouldn't be allowed to marry, your personal feelings are not the basis for law in this country.

That isn't my argument at all. I don't care about homosexual relationships. As marriage is about society/government carrying about a relationship there is no reason to grant marriage to homosexual couples.

 

[nehalem256]

That's a pretty authoritative statement from someone who is entirely ignorant of human sexuality.

If you have sex with men and women you are bisexual. I don't know what is difficult to understand about that. Its pretty much the definition of bisexual.

I have a question for those who don't support equality on marriage rights:

Do you understand you are harming people with that position?

Putting aside that you feel you have a reason for that position, I'm wondering if you view it as not harmful - like denying cigarettes to kids - or you understand it is harm?

I think your statement is incorrect. If I demand that the government give me $5000 and it refuses am I being harmed?

I would say no. And by the same logic if I demand that the government recognize my relationship and give me special benefits I am all not being harmed.

 

[futurefields]

I grew up in the bay area spent lots of time in SF. As a kid i remember being so horrified when I'd see a "bear" walking around with like some leather chaps and their hairy nether regions flapping in the wind. Or the ones who have no qualms about blowing each other in GG park. Theres something uniquely disgusting I think maybe about SF gay culture that has turned me away from wanting to support it. And as a straight guy ive also been propositioned by gay men, which is just... i mean ugh....

 

[mikeymikec]

I think your statement is incorrect. If I demand that the government give me $5000 and it refuses am I being harmed?

OK, this thread is largely about equal rights regarding marriage. You're talking about wanting money. I'm worried about how you made that connection.

I would say no. And by the same logic if I demand that the government recognize my relationship and give me special benefits I am all not being harmed.

The same rights (and so considered to be on an equal footing/social standing), as the majority. Something tells me that you would have a problem with it if the government imposed a "everyone can get married except nehalem256" law.

 

[nehalem256]

OK, this thread is largely about equal rights regarding marriage. You're talking about wanting money. I'm worried about how you made that connection.

If marriage is just a contract to get benefits then it is essentially just a way to get money from the government.

For a more concrete example see the recent SC case which was about a lesbian suing to essentially get money from the government.

The same rights (and so considered to be on an equal footing/social standing), as the majority. Something tells me that you would have a problem with it if the government imposed a "everyone can get married except nehalem256" law.

Except for the fact the same-sex and opposite-sex marriage are inherently different. See for example my earlier quote from Atheist Bertrand Russell.

There is no "right" to have your relationship considered to be the same as other people because you said so. But I appreciate your honesty in saying that is what gays actually want.

 

[mikeymikec]

If marriage is just a contract to get benefits then it is essentially just a way to get money from the government.

Since it isn't (a contract to get benefits) to the vast majority of people wanting to get married, your point is entirely irrelevant.

Except for the fact the same-sex and opposite-sex marriage are inherently different.

It's different for a young hetero couple or an older hetero couple to get married too. To point out there's a difference is like pointing out that black is not white. Your point isn't going anywhere.