Same sex marriages. Your opinon? Volume two.

[Chewbacca]

Sorry bud, that don't cut it! I can prove scientifically that heterosexuality is the way it's supposed to be by the fact that it's the only way you can procreate. You got the two things backwards. On purpose I think.

Actually human beings can procreate in a petri dish. Sorry to throw your scientific notion out the window.

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by Sir Kenyth: Sorry bud, that don't cut it! I can prove scientifically that heterosexuality is the way it's supposed to be by the fact that it's the only way you can procreate. You got the two things backwards. On purpose I think.

Arrrrrrggggh!!!! *bangs head on desk* *again*

Back to square one.

It is NOT fact that it's the only way you can procreate. In fact, with frozen sperm, men are not even needed for the propogation of the species anymore. As well, as I pointed out, there are those who can have what you call "natural sex" all day long without EVER having a child. The "procreation" argument is off the table. You took it off. I took it off. So, it comes down to your belief in what is "natural."

Your "science" is outmoded and untrue, and application of it would dissolve many current hetero marriages. Look, do a yahoo cross-search on "logical reasoning" and "modal logic" to find some wonderful reading materials.

I will bow to your circular reasoning at this point. Yes!! You must be right. Hetero sex is the only right sex because it is the only natural sex. It is the only natural sex because it is the only way people can procreate, despite fallacious rumors of in vitro fertilization and surrogate mothers. And, since hetero sex is obviously the only natural sex, being the only means of procreation, it also follows that only heteros can marry. And, even though they cannot procreate, sterile heteros should be allowed to marry because the *resemble* natural couples and possible could have once upon a time, or in a parallel universe, procreated. You are right, I am wrong. I do not know why I ignorantly questioned this obviously-clear circular reasoning. My bad. End of topic.

[Sir Kenyth]

Originally posted by Chewbacca: quote: Sorry bud, that don't cut it! I can prove scientifically that heterosexuality is the way it's supposed to be by the fact that it's the only way you can procreate. You got the two things backwards. On purpose I think.

Actually human beings can procreate in a petri dish. Sorry to throw your scientific notion out the window. [/QUOTE]Not naturally(unaided by scientific apparatus)! And you still need both the egg and sperm from a female and a male respectively. Weak arguement.

[Timber Loftis]

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."

[Night Stalker]

Also Sir K, sex for reproductive purposes is not related to sex for sexual purposes. The existance of one does not obviate the other. Just because (before scientific help) the only way for species propagation is M-F sexual relations does not mean "that's the way it's supposed to be" vs other sexual relations. Many species "learn the ropes" so to speak with homosexual conduct until the individuals mature enough to move up to the big games of the mating rituals.

The existance of one or the other neither lends legitimacy to nor obviates the other.

EDIT: In fact, noting that homosexual behaviour occurs in nature as well shows that is just as natual.

[ 08-08-2003, 04:20 PM: Message edited by: Night Stalker ]

[Sir Kenyth]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: quote: Originally posted by Sir Kenyth: Sorry bud, that don't cut it! I can prove scientifically that heterosexuality is the way it's supposed to be by the fact that it's the only way you can procreate. You got the two things backwards. On purpose I think.

Arrrrrrggggh!!!! *bangs head on desk* *again*

Back to square one.

It is NOT fact that it's the only way you can procreate. In fact, with frozen sperm, men are not even needed for the propogation of the species anymore. As well, as I pointed out, there are those who can have what you call "natural sex" all day long without EVER having a child. The "procreation" argument is off the table. You took it off. I took it off. So, it comes down to your belief in what is "natural."

[/QUOTE]The procreation fact is NOT off the table! You want it off the table because it's a hard point to argue against. It just dictates what the natural order of things is irrevecably. Where did the sperm come from? Not a woman I'll betcha! That means you need men to get it. Just like the egg can't come from a man, so you need women for it even if you throw the uterus out of the question totally with some scientific device. It takes two to make a baby, man and woman, period. Egg and sperm.

[Chewbacca]

Originally posted by Sir Kenyth: quote: Originally posted by Chewbacca: quote: Sorry bud, that don't cut it! I can prove scientifically that heterosexuality is the way it's supposed to be by the fact that it's the only way you can procreate. You got the two things backwards. On purpose I think.

Actually human beings can procreate in a petri dish. Sorry to throw your scientific notion out the window. [/QUOTE]Not naturally(unaided by scientific apparatus)! And you still need both the egg and sperm from a female and a male respectively. Weak arguement. [/QUOTE]Not weak, you said that scientifically heterosexuality is way its supposed to be done naturally and implied that scientifically sex is the only way to procreate. I demonstrated factual this is incorrect and not based in science.

Besides, how can argue something scientifically on one point, and then remove the apparatuses of science on rebuttal to the same point? You want to have the cake and eat it too.

In Nature, some organisms dont need sex to procreate. Naturally and unaided by science many animals practice homosexual behavior. So if you are looking to nature to back up your stance against homosexuality I think you will find more to debunk your argument than you could ever find to support it.

[Rokenn]

Originally posted by Sir Kenyth: And you still need both the egg and sperm from a female and a male respectively. Weak arguement.

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.

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by Sir Kenyth: The procreation fact is NOT off the table! You want it off the table because it's a hard point to argue against. It just dictates what the natural order of things is irrevecably. Where did the sperm come from? Not a woman I'll betcha! That means you need men to get it. Just like the egg can't come from a man, so you need women for it even if you throw the uterus out of the question totally with some scientific device. It takes two to make a baby, man and woman, period. Egg and sperm.

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:

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."

[Sir Kenyth]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: 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."

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.