Infertile couples should not be allowed to marry

[twa]

Ummm, that the original post was satirical, not literal.

The original poster was a satanist that only moves forward? :rubeyes: :security:

[Larry]

The original poster was a satanist that only moves forward? :rubeyes: :security:

And can't read.

[dfitzo53]

Whoot, page 10!!!!

Since you're so fond of pointing out the mistakes of others in this thread, let me just clarify that there's no "h" in "woot". It is, however, acceptable to spell it with 0's for O's.

[Predicto]

Since you're so fond of pointing out the mistakes of others in this thread, let me just clarify that there's no "h" in "woot". It is, however, acceptable to spell it with 0's for O's.

zomg pwnd!!! :mad:

[Zguy28]

It all comes down to the fact that many people just think its wrong. Its not that they want to treat people as "less equal." Its not the procreation thing either. That's just a symptom so to speak.

Its the root of it that matters. Many people just plainly feel that a gay relationship is wrong. Period. Nothing personal.

And hence, they feel that allowing gays to marry is encouraging wrong and/or immoral behavior. That's many people's feeling on it (as evidenced by the large numbers of people who voted to ban it in state elections).

What makes me scratch my head is, gays want to get married, and straights don't these days.

[dfitzo53]

What makes me scratch my head is, gays want to get married, and straights don't these days.

I don't think that's true in any real sense.

[Larry]

It all comes down to the fact that many people just think its wrong. Its not that they want to treat people as "less equal." Its not the procreation thing either. That's just a symptom so to speak.

Its the root of it that matters. Many people just plainly feel that a gay relationship is wrong. Period. Nothing personal.

And hence, they feel that allowing gays to marry is encouraging wrong and/or immoral behavior. That's many people's feeling on it (as evidenced by the large numbers of people who voted to ban it in state elections).

Good thing we have a Constitution, that says that the law must treat all citizens equally, even if folks don't like their type.

In case you can't tell (lots of subtlety-impaired folks in this thread )I agree with you: The reason large groups of people are flocking to the polls so that they can firmly incorporate apartheid as deeply into our legal system as possible, is because "folks don't like them folks". (Well, that, and the fact that one political party has decided that there's votes to be made, by catering to the bigot vote.)

There is no reason, other than dislike.

My point it: That's not a good enough reason.

[twa]

Good thing we have a Constitution, that says that the law must treat all citizens equally, even if folks don't like their type.

You still beating that dead horse?

[Larry]

You still beating that dead horse?

Some people don't think the Constitution is a dead horse.

(Granted, the Republican party has been working real hard, for years, to make it one, though.)

[twa]

Some people don't think the Constitution is a dead horse.

(Granted, the Republican party has been working real hard, for years, to make it one, though.)

You didn't agree with the court?

Shame on you

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1144465.cms

Judge Gary Taylor said it served government interests by promoting a traditional definition of marriage as between a man and woman.

"The court finds it is a legitimate interest to encourage the stability and legitimacy of what may reasonably be viewed as the optimal union for procreating and rearing children by both biological parents," Taylor wrote.

"Because procreation is necessary to perpetuate humankind, encouraging the optimal union for procreation is a legitimate government interest," Taylor added.

"Encouraging the optimal union for rearing children by both biological parents is also a legitimate government interest."

[Mass_SkinsFan]

Good thing we have a Constitution, that says that the law must treat all citizens equally, even if folks don't like their type.

In case you can't tell (lots of subtlety-impaired folks in this thread )I agree with you: The reason large groups of people are flocking to the polls so that they can firmly incorporate apartheid as deeply into our legal system as possible, is because "folks don't like them folks". (Well, that, and the fact that one political party has decided that there's votes to be made, by catering to the bigot vote.)

There is no reason, other than dislike.

My point it: That's not a good enough reason.

Larry, the problem is that no society in the history of this planet has continued to exist for an extended period of time once it lost its moral compass. For many of us it's not about the individuals involved, but about the ACT itself. Unfortunately we're probably way too far down the road to ruin at this point to straighten ourselves out. I can just hope that I'm around to see the final fall of America.

[Larry]

I suppose that if I thought that "legislating bigotry" was "morality", then you'd have a point.

[Predicto]

You didn't agree with the court?

Shame on you

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1144465.cms

Judge Gary Taylor said it served government interests by promoting a traditional definition of marriage as between a man and woman.

"The court finds it is a legitimate interest to encourage the stability and legitimacy of what may reasonably be viewed as the optimal union for procreating and rearing children by both biological parents," Taylor wrote.

"Because procreation is necessary to perpetuate humankind, encouraging the optimal union for procreation is a legitimate government interest," Taylor added.

"Encouraging the optimal union for rearing children by both biological parents is also a legitimate government interest."

Which brings us back to the original post, right? If this judge is correct, then, ergo, infertile couples should not be permitted to marry.

[twa]

Which brings us back to the original post, right? If this judge is correct, then, ergo, infertile couples should not be permitted to marry.

But how you gonna prove fertility?

The doctors have been mistaken many times.

[twa]

I suppose that if I thought that "legislating bigotry" was "morality", then you'd have a point.

Again you disagree with the court.

"in commonsense and in a constitutional sense, there is a clear distinction between a marital restriction based merely upon race and one based upon the fundamental difference in sex."10

Baker v. Nelson

You sure your not Republican?

[Predicto]

But how you gonna prove fertility?

The doctors have been mistaken many times.

Whoops - change of subject.

Nicely parried.

[Larry]

Again you disagree with the court.

"in commonsense and in a constitutional sense, there is a clear distinction between a marital restriction based merely upon race and one based upon the fundamental difference in sex."10

Baker v. Nelson

You sure your not Republican?

So now we have a different (invalid) argument:

The "discrimination based on race is bad, but discrimination based on sex is OK" one.

Here's a clue:

If saying "blacks can't get married" is discrimination, then saying "gays can't get married" is, too.

The only difference between those two statements is that a lot of folks aren't ashamed to be bigoted towards gays (to the point of demanding that society enforce their bigotry).

They should be (ashamed). They just aren't.

[twa]

Larry ,I'm not gonna sit here and listen to you disrespect the court.

I shall go take a shower while you contemplate the error of your ways.

[Larry]

But how you gonna prove fertility?

The doctors have been mistaken many times.

When my Grandfather died, in his 70's, my Grandmother (after a while) chose to marry her High School sweetheart. They lived together for 10 years.

Here I had no idea that my Grandmother was a radical, immoral, America-hater. No doubt she must have been one of the leaders in the secret movement to push the homosexual agenda by attacking the sacred institution of marriage by daring to attempt to extend it to apply to people who were incapable of conception.

Obviously, I must have inherited the homosexual agenda from here. Oh but wait. That can't be, because if it's inherited than discrimination would be immoral. She must have brainwashed me into the homosexual agenda. That's it.

[Larry]

Larry ,I'm not gonna sit here and listen to you disrespect the court.

When the court uses a blatantly invalid and transparent excuse (an excuse which the original poster has pointed out the idiocy of) to ignore the Constitution and legislate bigotry (and to rule that my Grandmother was a threat to society, which society needed legislation to protect itself from her), then yeah, I'm going to disrespect the court.

Dread Scott was wrong, too.

[Larry]

In fact, after further consideration, I'm going to go a bit further.

Yes, I realize, I'm going (further) into the realm of personal opinion. Likely traveling from "impassioned but still logical and rational advocacy of a position" to "Mass-like rantings and elevation of personal opinion to delusions of universal law." But I just feel compelled, anyway. (Maybe it's the cold I've had for two weeks.)

Any person who makes the argument that gays must be banned from marriage because they cannot conceive is a liar.

The argument is so obviously stupid that it's simply impossible to believe that there could exist, somewhere, a person stupid enough to believe it.

(I'll make a second blanket assertion, too: The person who makes that argument? He knows that he's lying, knows that his argument is not only a lie, but an obvious one, and tells himself that it's OK because his superior morality gives him license to lie.)

Show me somebody who claims that gays shouldn't be allowed to marry because they never have before, and I'll think he's wrong, but I'll assume that he's at least honest. (I'll even think that his argument has some validity. Just not, IMO, enough.)

But the guy who makes the "they can't conceive" argument? He's a flat-out liar, who doesn't even have enough respect for the truth (or himself) to come up with a believable lie.

-----

As long as I'm stating my opinions as facts, I'll make another one, too:

Show me someone who's contribution to a gay-marriage thread is "it's a choice", and I'll show you someone:

• Who's position is based on bigotry.
  
• Who knows his position is based on bigotry.
  
• Who knows that bigotry is wrong.
  
• Who's decided, therefore, not to actually state his own position. (Because he knows his position is wrong.)
  
• Who already knows what response he's going to get if he actually reveals his position.
  
• And has decided (because he's ashamed of his own position) to skip the part where he states his position, and jump directly to the response that he knows is coming,
  
• By answering the question that hasn't even been asked yet, of "What makes you think that legalized, mandatory discrimination in this situation, is any less reprehensible than previous systems of apartheid?"
  

In short, the person who jumps in with "it's a choice" is attempting to skip over the "I support bigotry" part, by proceeding directly to the "But this kind of bigotry is OK" part.

-----

Apologies for the rant. It's a touchy subject for me.

[twa]

Wow...Larry's in high dungeon

BTW...Did you just say my point was valid?