So, you're against the marriage of my mother who I rendered infertile too?
I love you guys, find ways to insult sexual preferences, biological issues, and other ideas. Does it feel good?
2007-05-30 08:51:36 · 20 answers · asked by Squishy Mckay 2 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Alternative ➔ Parapsychology
No it isn't. I don't have any reason to respect Jesus., as there is no historical evidence of his existence.
2007-05-30 08:56:07 · update #1
Ruin the life... What!?
I'd rather be raised by two loving parents with the same gender than be molested in some orphanage!
2007-05-30 08:58:31 · update #2
charlienoble up there chastises you for being "fallacious" while simultaneously asserting the FALSE notion that children are "screwed up" by homosexual parents.
Oh, and NOW it's posting a link to NARTH.
Anyone else find this terribly amusing? Anyone?
2007-05-30 08:59:57 · answer #1 · answered by ZER0 C00L ••AM••VT•• 7 · 7⤊ 0⤋
oh, wow, a stupid argument for against Gay Marriage. Who would have thunk it??
Seriously, its just another dumb, made-up, nonsensical "reason" to justify some people's inexplicable and unfounded fear of Gay marriage. The truth is that there really isn't any rational reason against Gay marriage, mainly because the concept of marriage is not a rational concept. It is a social custom that was created a very very long time ago, and went through many changes till it reached its current form (this is for all those who talk about the sanctity of marriage being the same since the days of the Bible...). And all customs can and do change, all the time. Its just a matter of how society views that change, and when enough people view it favorably, it just happens.
I wish people would spend more time working on their own marriages, making them better and stronger than worry about who else should or shouldn't get married...
2007-05-30 09:22:52 · answer #2 · answered by EL8 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
a million) Civil marriage is one among those incorporation. Its customary purpose is to rearrange possession of materials and forestall monetary chaos. The advertising of a nurturing atmosphere for little ones is a secondary income, yet procreation has never been a pronounced purpose. the author makes an faulty assumption. 2) the author tries to prop up #a million with yet another philosophical argument. in fact, married couples have outnumbered single adults for many of yankee historic previous, and married human beings needed the tax benefit. The social metrics are changing and the tax wreck could replace too. 3) the author now characterizes his #a million as an unfunded mandate. the two it somewhat is important adequate to enforce, or it is not important. He then dismisses each and all of the heterosexual exceptions as unenforceable or uncommon. This basically erodes his argument that #a million is important to the state. with the aid of fact gays are a minority, gay marriage could additionally be somewhat uncommon. And gay individuals are greater useful able to offer a nurturing atmosphere for little ones while they're legally called a committed couple. The divorce fee between heterosexual couples is over 50% so marriage is not any assure of stability for little ones. final of all, the author asserts that sexual love endangers marriage and leades to chaos. go searching! it somewhat is how issues artwork NOW! permitting one discriminated group an identical rights as others won't make any distinction. Your author is obviously a Christian who thinks that by potential of not preserving God, he could make a logical argument out of his biases.
2016-10-30 06:01:57 · answer #3 · answered by wisniowski 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It just serves to show us just how shallow that phylosophy can be when it comes to spiritual union. Sounds like a breading program to me. Is this only about sex to these people?
Do you think if one cannot procreate, reproduce I should say... you are not supposed to have sex even if it is with the opposit sex, married or not? Makes me wonder. So if we can't have children or maybe we are done having children then we should no longer have sex even in marriage given that marriage is only about having children?You know where this could go?So, if you adopt cause you need that 'alternative', love that word now... then you have no excuse to have sex? What?Well, well, well, words just escape me. That's a whole lot of pent up sexual energy. Sheesh!
Hey! Who says a gay couple can't get pregnant?If the plumbing works and they have a friend or a good old fashioned sperm bank?
Is spiritual union all about sex then? Oh I mean breeding? I thought it was like soul mates or something crazy like that. Call me a romantic fool. I find this disgusting.
I'm just asking...
peace! I'm all for love!
Oh, oh, oh! ( Jumps up amnd down with hand in air!)Zero! If they are screwed up the children from having an openly gay marriage, guess how screwed up they will be having gay parents in the closet! ROFL! Tell them that one! Oh I just did, but we can say it again!
Better people are themselves and live and love honestly. ;-)
2007-05-30 09:30:25 · answer #4 · answered by Jamie 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
If that was their only argument to gay marriages then they are sadly mistaken. Whether one can procreate or not is not a prerequisite to marriage. I have yet to understand why anyone wants to judge another person. I pretty much straddle the fence on the issue because of my religious beliefs, however I think that passing laws that they cant get married or that they cannot have health insurance and benefits of their partner whether heterosexual or homosexual is absolutely ridiculous and should never have been an issue for our government to become involved in.
2007-05-30 08:57:45 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
There are many couples who cannot or choose not to have children - their marriages are just as valid as any other marriage.
As for the idea that gays cannot procreate that is silly - I am gay but have a 19 year old daughter.
CANNOT and DO NOT are completly different concepts.
Please note that Melissa Etheridge and her wife had a child.
2007-05-30 08:55:50 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
So why is this in R&S? This has nothing to do with Jesus or God or religion at all. The truth is everyone has different beliefs on homosexuality but gay people are people just as much as straight people and should have the right legally marry the one they love. I am a Christian and personally don't think homosexuallity is right but just because I believe it doesn't mean eveyone does so gays should be able to marry, end of story.
2007-05-30 09:12:21 · answer #7 · answered by Krista P 2 · 1⤊ 2⤋
It's not my issue, Squishy. I didn't make it wrong, and saying it's fine doesn't make it so. There was no insult intended; I just answered the question that was asked. You might want to note the question. Also read my added detail.
And no, your mother is a woman. And your father is a man. Biologically compatible to reproduce, even if physically unable. You know that's not even a serious question.
2007-05-30 08:57:32 · answer #8 · answered by hoff_mom 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The fact that there is an abundance of orphans in need of loving parents makes the "they can't procreate" argument impotent. I personally find it appalling to what levels of dishonesty some religious people will sink to try to justify their unjustifiable aversion to homosexuality.
2007-05-30 09:26:38 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
I'm infertile as well as bisexual, so even if I married a man, there'd be no kids. That argument is so insulting to many "traditional"-minded people as well as LGBTs.
Furthermore, as for the "poor straight kids"--most LGBT kids were born to straight parents!
2007-05-30 09:55:26 · answer #10 · answered by GreenEyedLilo 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋