Iowa: Gay Marriage Ban Unconstitutional

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
161

[quote]forlife wrote:
Sloth wrote:
What are you doing? Testing the sperm (insert joke) and ovulation of the couples that pass you by on the street?

Are you trying to argue that if infertile straight couples were not allowed to marry, this wouldn’t create an uproar because nobody would know whether a particular couple was infertile or not? Seriously?

It’s the law that we’re talking about here, and the effects of this law on public perceptions and consequent modeling behavior.

Obviously, allowing infertile straight couples to marry sends a very strong message that marriage is NOT solely or even primarily about procreation. If you seriously wanted not to send this message, you would advocate against infertile couples marrying.[/quote]

Allowing men and women to marry sends the message. The numbers ensure the sought after results. The more common marriage is between men and women, the more models. More models, the greater the norm. The greater the norm, the greater the pull to follow it. Equalling greater numbers marrying. Then, more married getting it on in a committed relationship. The greater number getting it on, the more instances of conception. The more conceptions, the more birthed healthy and alive. The more birthed healthy and alive, the more to be raised in intact homes with both bio parents present. The more bio parents present, fewer negative statistics. Such as the violence and generational poverty stats associated with out of wedlock births.

I’m really dissapointed that a Phd had to have this explained by a guy who hasn’t even managed to finish college yet.

162

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
I love this Augustine-esque natural law BS. Boy-oh-boy! Sexual organs exist therefore marriage must be between two members of the opposite sex! It’s only natural!!

…

My arguement does in fact center on the ability of men and women to reproduce. And-and!-to raise their own children together. I see no reason to join you in supporting polygamy (including bi-sexual arrangements), gay marriage, and hetero-same sex marriage (hey, if they want the benefits, right?).

So nice of you to decide what is and is not “natural” for the rest of us!
[/quote]

I just have to come back to this. When was the last time your rectum was impregnated? If not yours, how many acquaintances of yours have shat out a child? And, I can only imagine that one of your lesbian friends must be capable of ejaculating sperm from either her fingers or tongue? Perhaps it’s both? Next time you attempt a witty little comment, think a bit. In this case nature and reality, well, they aren’t on your side.

Now hey, your support for polygamy (hetero) is at least based in the reality of natural reproduction. But I still can’t support that either. Nor, can I support your efforts in having marriage and it’s legal entitlements extended to heterosexual same-sex arrangements. We’re just going to have to disagree.

163

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Allowing men and women to marry sends the message. The numbers ensure the sought after results. The more common marriage is between men and women, the more models. More models, the greater the norm. The greater the norm, the greater the pull to follow it. Equalling greater numbers marrying. [/quote]

So you’re now arguing that allowing infertile couples to marry isn’t that big of a deal, because there aren’t that many anyway?

In that case, why not allow gays to marry since they only represent 2-3% of the population (according to the stats you guys like to quote)?

164

[quote]forlife wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Allowing men and women to marry sends the message. The numbers ensure the sought after results. The more common marriage is between men and women, the more models. More models, the greater the norm. The greater the norm, the greater the pull to follow it. Equalling greater numbers marrying.

So you’re now arguing that allowing infertile couples to marry isn’t that big of a deal, because there aren’t that many anyway?

In that case, why not allow gays to marry since they only represent 2-3% of the population (according to the stats you guys like to quote)?[/quote]

I’m not even remotely arguing what you’re saying I’m arguing. I’m saying, what I’ve said. Stop debating what you wanted to hear, and debate what was said. Cripes.

Edit: Hint. Start with the point about infertile couples still providing the model for a man to leave his single life behind, and a woman to leave her single life behind. Both forming a committed relationship consisting of the two mating sexes. If you can’t grasp a concept that elementary, we’re done.

165

I’m simply applying your logic to the gay marriage issue. If the “law of numbers” works as you claim, why are you even worried about gay marriage being a negative model?

I understand that infertile couples provide a model for a man and woman to marry, and said exactly that a few posts back. I’m just asking you to acknowledge that infertile couples also provide a model for people to marry without reproduction being the primary, or even remotely possible, reason for doing so.

166

[quote]forlife wrote:
I’m simply applying your logic to the gay marriage issue. If the “law of numbers” works as you claim, why are you even worried about gay marriage being a negative model?

I understand that infertile couples provide a model for a man and woman to marry, and said exactly that a few posts back. I’m just asking you to acknowledge that infertile couples also provide a model for people to marry without reproduction being the primary, or even remotely possible, reason for doing so.[/quote]

Answered already.

167

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:

So nice of you to decide what is and is not “natural” for the rest of us!

Thanks for crediting me with the form and function of the penis, testicles, vagina, ovaries, and (due to the nature of the topic) rectum. However, I’m afraid your praise is misplaced. Truth be told, I had no hand in fashioning man or woman. [/quote]

Nah, you didn’t craft it, you just interpret the crafter’s will for the rest of us. Good thing we have you to tell us what is “natural” and what is not.

168

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
I love this Augustine-esque natural law BS. Boy-oh-boy! Sexual organs exist therefore marriage must be between two members of the opposite sex! It’s only natural!!

…

My arguement does in fact center on the ability of men and women to reproduce. And-and!-to raise their own children together. I see no reason to join you in supporting polygamy (including bi-sexual arrangements), gay marriage, and hetero-same sex marriage (hey, if they want the benefits, right?).

So nice of you to decide what is and is not “natural” for the rest of us!

I just have to come back to this. When was the last time your rectum was impregnated? If not yours, how many acquaintances of yours have shat out a child? And, I can only imagine that one of your lesbian friends must be capable of ejaculating sperm from either her fingers or tongue? Perhaps it’s both? Next time you attempt a witty little comment, think a bit. In this case nature and reality, well, they aren’t on your side.

Now hey, your support for polygamy (hetero) is at least based in the reality of natural reproduction. But I still can’t support that either. Nor, can I support your efforts in having marriage and it’s legal entitlements extended to heterosexual same-sex arrangements. We’re just going to have to disagree.
[/quote]

Could you tell me what my hand is for too? When I was in HS my theology teacher was pretty sure I was going to hell if I used it inappropriately. I never did get the final answer on that one.

169

[quote]Sloth wrote:

I’m […] a guy who hasn’t even managed to finish college yet.[/quote]

What a surprise! Next you’ll tell me you’re older, white, from a rural area, religious, and a closet homosexual yourself!

[quote]forlife wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
BTW, speaking of education, are there any stats that link education level and beliefs towards gays? How about income level and beliefs towards gays? I think I be formin’ me a hypothesous.

You can google actual references, but here’s a nutshell summary from Wiki:

Studies have consistently shown that people with negative attitudes towards lesbians and gays are more likely to be male, older, religious, politically conservative, have lower education levels,[49] live in more rural areas[49] and have little close personal contact with openly gay individuals,[50] as well as supporting traditional gender roles.[51][/quote]

170

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
I love this Augustine-esque natural law BS. Boy-oh-boy! Sexual organs exist therefore marriage must be between two members of the opposite sex! It’s only natural!!

…

My arguement does in fact center on the ability of men and women to reproduce. And-and!-to raise their own children together. I see no reason to join you in supporting polygamy (including bi-sexual arrangements), gay marriage, and hetero-same sex marriage (hey, if they want the benefits, right?).

So nice of you to decide what is and is not “natural” for the rest of us!

I just have to come back to this. When was the last time your rectum was impregnated? If not yours, how many acquaintances of yours have shat out a child? And, I can only imagine that one of your lesbian friends must be capable of ejaculating sperm from either her fingers or tongue? Perhaps it’s both? Next time you attempt a witty little comment, think a bit. In this case nature and reality, well, they aren’t on your side.

Now hey, your support for polygamy (hetero) is at least based in the reality of natural reproduction. But I still can’t support that either. Nor, can I support your efforts in having marriage and it’s legal entitlements extended to heterosexual same-sex arrangements. We’re just going to have to disagree.

Could you tell me what my hand is for too? When I was in HS my theology teacher was pretty sure I was going to hell if I used it inappropriately. I never did get the final answer on that one.
[/quote]

Unfortunately, you can’t quite get past the sex, to the underlying issue. But, if your hand develops a womb, and the both of you are willing to raise any offspring in a committed relationship…

171

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
Sloth wrote:

I’m […] a guy who hasn’t even managed to finish college yet.

What a surprise! Next you’ll tell me you’re older, white, from a rural area, religious, and a closet homosexual yourself!
[/quote]

I guess bigotry IS ok. Just depends on who the target is! Stereotype away, Mr. Gambit. It’s a wonderful illustrion of the “anti-bigotry” bigot.

172

[quote]
Sloth wrote:

I’m […] a guy who hasn’t even managed to finish college yet.[/quote]

What a surprise! Next you’ll tell me you’re older, white, from a rural area, religious, and a closet homosexual yourself!

[quote]
forlife wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
BTW, speaking of education, are there any stats that link education level and beliefs towards gays? How about income level and beliefs towards gays? I think I be formin’ me a hypothesous.

You can google actual references, but here’s a nutshell summary from Wiki:

Studies have consistently shown that people with negative attitudes towards lesbians and gays are more likely to be male, older, religious, politically conservative, have lower education levels,[49] live in more rural areas[49] and have little close personal contact with openly gay individuals,[50] as well as supporting traditional gender roles.[51]

173

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:

So nice of you to decide what is and is not “natural” for the rest of us!

Thanks for crediting me with the form and function of the penis, testicles, vagina, ovaries, and (due to the nature of the topic) rectum. However, I’m afraid your praise is misplaced. Truth be told, I had no hand in fashioning man or woman.

Nah, you didn’t craft it, you just interpret the crafter’s will for the rest of us. Good thing we have you to tell us what is “natural” and what is not. [/quote]

What in the world are you on about? I didn’t make up how babies are made. Holy smokes!

174

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
Sloth wrote:

I’m […] a guy who hasn’t even managed to finish college yet.

What a surprise! Next you’ll tell me you’re older, white, from a rural area, religious, and a closet homosexual yourself!

I guess bigotry IS ok. Just depends on who the target is! Stereotype away, Mr. Gambit. It’s a wonderful illustrion of the “anti-bigotry” bigot. [/quote]

I’m guessing he’s point out the flaws in stereotyping like you do.

I could be wrong, I don’t have one of those fancy PhD’s either.

175

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
I love this Augustine-esque natural law BS. Boy-oh-boy! Sexual organs exist therefore marriage must be between two members of the opposite sex! It’s only natural!!

…

My arguement does in fact center on the ability of men and women to reproduce. And-and!-to raise their own children together. I see no reason to join you in supporting polygamy (including bi-sexual arrangements), gay marriage, and hetero-same sex marriage (hey, if they want the benefits, right?).

So nice of you to decide what is and is not “natural” for the rest of us!

I just have to come back to this. When was the last time your rectum was impregnated? If not yours, how many acquaintances of yours have shat out a child? And, I can only imagine that one of your lesbian friends must be capable of ejaculating sperm from either her fingers or tongue? Perhaps it’s both? Next time you attempt a witty little comment, think a bit. In this case nature and reality, well, they aren’t on your side.

Now hey, your support for polygamy (hetero) is at least based in the reality of natural reproduction. But I still can’t support that either. Nor, can I support your efforts in having marriage and it’s legal entitlements extended to heterosexual same-sex arrangements. We’re just going to have to disagree.

Could you tell me what my hand is for too? When I was in HS my theology teacher was pretty sure I was going to hell if I used it inappropriately. I never did get the final answer on that one.

Unfortunately, you can’t quite get past the sex, to the underlying issue. But, if your hand develops a womb, and the both of you are willing to raise any offspring in a committed relationship…[/quote]

Unfortunately, you either can’t understand what I’m saying, or refuse to address it…

Could you please tell me what my hand is for? I’m actually serious when I say my HS theology teacher said certain uses were sinful…unnatural…

176

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
Sloth wrote:

I’m […] a guy who hasn’t even managed to finish college yet.

What a surprise! Next you’ll tell me you’re older, white, from a rural area, religious, and a closet homosexual yourself!

I guess bigotry IS ok. Just depends on who the target is! Stereotype away, Mr. Gambit. It’s a wonderful illustrion of the “anti-bigotry” bigot. [/quote]

I’m guessing he’s point out the flaws in stereotyping like you do.

I could be wrong, I don’t have one of those fancy PhD’s either.

177

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
Unfortunately, you either can’t understand what I’m saying, or refuse to address it…

Could you please tell me what my hand is for? I’m actually serious when I say my HS theology teacher said certain uses were sinful…unnatural…
[/quote]

What? This isn’t a discussion about how you, or anyone, pleasures themselves. Again, what are you on about?

178

[quote]Makavali wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
Sloth wrote:

I’m […] a guy who hasn’t even managed to finish college yet.

What a surprise! Next you’ll tell me you’re older, white, from a rural area, religious, and a closet homosexual yourself!

I guess bigotry IS ok. Just depends on who the target is! Stereotype away, Mr. Gambit. It’s a wonderful illustrion of the “anti-bigotry” bigot.

I’m guessing he’s point out the flaws in stereotyping like you do.

I could be wrong, I don’t have one of those fancy PhD’s either.[/quote]

What stereotyping? That two men can’t produce offspring from having intercourse with each other? That’s not a friggen stereotype…

179

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
Unfortunately, you either can’t understand what I’m saying, or refuse to address it…

Could you please tell me what my hand is for? I’m actually serious when I say my HS theology teacher said certain uses were sinful…unnatural…

What? This isn’t a discussion about how you, or anyone, pleasures themselves. Again, what are you on about?[/quote]

But my teacher was talking about making a fist…

180

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
Sloth wrote:

I’m […] a guy who hasn’t even managed to finish college yet.

What a surprise! Next you’ll tell me you’re older, white, from a rural area, religious, and a closet homosexual yourself!

I guess bigotry IS ok. Just depends on who the target is! Stereotype away, Mr. Gambit. It’s a wonderful illustrion of the “anti-bigotry” bigot. [/quote]

Some people are bigoted against blacks. Some people are bigoted against homosexuals. Gambit_Lost? He’s bigoted against the bigots!

…I must hate myself…