bzzzzzzzzztttttt wrong but thank you for playing!
Within 5 years you will see the birth of the first cloned human. Therefore all that is needed is a uterus to carry the fetus. Give it another decade or two and you may not even need that. </font>[/QUOTE]Rokenn!! [img]graemlins/whackya.gif[/img] Please quit pointing this out. My single greatest fear is that women will wake up one day and realize (1) women are more attractive than men, and (2) men are not needed for procreation. Then it's "DRONE CITY" for all of us, I'm afraid. :(

Because they are still following the natural order of things. If they weren't sterile they could procreate. Homosexuals cannot procreate regardless. The fact that procreation is possible sets the precedent for the natural order of things. I do not care if homosexuals have sex. I care that they want to be a part of the institution founded upon the natural order of things for thousands of years. If you want to be a part of something special like that, you've got to follow the rules. </font>[/QUOTE]Anyone else want to take this? I have some actual work to do, and must go for a bit. I'm sure some of you students were paying attention -- perhaps you can explain it better than I, because my words are merely echoing off the forum walls. Carry on 'til I get back. :D

[edit]:
Sir K, let me pose this off-the-wall hypothetical, though. Just go with it, mkay? Suppose that tomorrow, some girl nibbled her girlfriend in that "special place," and a child was begat due to the act. I know, totally ridiculous, but just go with it for s**ts and giggles. Okay, would you then be okay with homosexual marriage? What about just for those female couples that could "lick-procreate"?? I know it's a crazy hypo, but bear with me.

[ 08-08-2003, 04:39 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

Well Rokken, let's be fair .... let's leave scientific advancements out of the picture. There are plenty of "natual" examples to debunk his hidebound "it's the way nature intended" beliefs.

Now if he would admitt that his beliefs are his preference, as Timber is leading him to (OBJECT COUNSELOR! LEADING THE WITNESS! :D ) then we would all have to agree to disagree .... live and let live and all that.

Which is presisely the gay community is asking for!

You are allowed to lead during cross-examination of an adverse witness. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

It is off the table. You took it off and so did I. Sorry to point it out, but we argued it up one side of the forum and down the other, and I led you by the nose to a royal logical trouncing (*flexes left brain lobe for show-off effect*). Once we threw other issues (like sterility and homosexual adoption) into the mix, you backed off of it. Read the post of yours directly before my "Nugget of it" post and you'll see, si tu abres los ojos. I wouldn't have come round to posting my "nugget" post if I didn't feel it was obvious to me, you, and anyone that the "procreation" bit had been shown to be a distinction without a difference.

But, I'm happy to do it again. Hell, Socrates had patience when dealing with Menes, and I can exhibit the same virtue. Try answering this, and we'll begin again:

Quote:

Sterile people can't procreate naturally. Tell me again why we aren't dissolving their marriages. I think your only answer will end up translating to "they LOOK LIKE people who could procreate."

</font>[/QUOTE][img]graemlins/biglaugh.gif[/img]

"I led you by the nose to a royal logical trouncing"

[img]graemlins/biglaugh.gif[/img]

Reminds me of a song lyric.
"I put that bouncer in his place! I smacked his elbow with my face"

Listen killer, I'm at work and doing this between digital emergencies, which are a'plenty! When I disappear for a few posts I've got business to take care of. I'm not hiding my head in the sand.


Male + Female IS the natural order of things. As a matter of fact, it's the natural way for all mammals, so it's not a new concept. Homosexual behavior has always been the deviant behavior. Heterosexuals can procreate naturally under normal conditions with exceptions. Homosexuals can NEVER procreate, period. Taking into account that it's the natural way to do it, you can see that homosexuality is the unnatural way to do it. Possible procreation points to the natural way to do it. Not, "If the natural way to do it doesn't lead to procreation in all instances then it's null and void!" Which seems to be your stance.

I'm not accusing you of hiding your head in the sand. And, I was bragging about how I argue, not how I fight. But, touche nevertheless. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

Killer. [img]graemlins/biglaugh.gif[/img] Can, I keep that title?

[ 08-08-2003, 04:50 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

Hey Timber! You must be psycopathic! er telemorphic! er a PreCog! This sounds vaguely like "They look like us ..."!!! This 'institution' you are clinging to has nothing to do with natural order. It is a social contract of sorts that arose for a method of raising children. There are other successful childrearing models in the world. It then morped into a religeous institution.

Just what sort of Institutional Perks do you want to deny "those people"? Most of the rights and recognition they are looking for have nothing to do with religeon, or child bearing. And why should they be denied them?

Wrong, A female homosexual will be able to procreate via cloning in the very near future. Once this is the case will they be allowed to marry?

Because they are still following the natural order of things. If they weren't sterile they could procreate. Homosexuals cannot procreate regardless. The fact that procreation is possible sets the precedent for the natural order of things. I do not care if homosexuals have sex. I care that they want to be a part of the institution founded upon the natural order of things for thousands of years. If you want to be a part of something special like that, you've got to follow the rules. </font>[/QUOTE]Anyone else want to take this? I have some actual work to do, and must go for a bit. I'm sure some of you students were paying attention -- perhaps you can explain it better than I, because my words are merely echoing off the forum walls. Carry on 'til I get back. :D

[edit]:
Sir K, let me pose this off-the-wall hypothetical, though. Just go with it, mkay? Suppose that tomorrow, some girl nibbled her girlfriend in that "special place," and a child was begat due to the act. I know, totally ridiculous, but just go with it for s**ts and giggles. Okay, would you then be okay with homosexual marriage? What about just for those female couples that could "lick-procreate"?? I know it's a crazy hypo, but bear with me. </font>[/QUOTE]Well, then they wouldn't be strictly female, would they? They would be a bisexual organism or hermaphroditic. They would not be homosexual at all and following their natural biological order.

Hey Timber! You must be psycopathic! er telemorphic! er a PreCog! This sounds vaguely like "They look like us ..."!!!

Quote:

Originally posted by Sir Kenyth: I do not care if homosexuals have sex. I care that they want to be a part of the institution founded upon the natural order of things for thousands of years. If you want to be a part of something special like that, you've got to follow the rules.

This 'institution' you are clinging to has nothing to do with natural order. It is a social contract of sorts that arose for a method of raising children. There are other successful childrearing models in the world. It then morped into a religeous institution.

Just what sort of Institutional Perks do you want to deny "those people"? Most of the rights and recognition they are looking for have nothing to do with religeon, or child bearing. And why should they be denied them? </font>[/QUOTE]I disagree! Marriage was founded on that very natural order. If they don't follow the institutions foundations, then they don't get to be a part of it. Should I be able to marry myself for a tax benefit if I work two jobs?