Poll shows Utah evenly split on gay marriage rights-

Your idea of what is relevant is no different from the people who say it isn't relevant to consider gay marriage.

What you cannot do is justify specifically why we should only grant gay marriage legality and ignore all other sexual preferences who have the same argument you do.

 

I seriously have no idea what you're talking about. Can you rephrase in a sensible manner?

Legally speaking, it's not an all or nothing question. Not to mention that this is a complete strawman.

 

JohnnyMo had no basis for deleting the response to this comment of yours, so I'm going to repost it.

Flintc: your comment to me was baseless. The OP attempted to give the 'poll' in Utah some credibility. Sadanie - in typical Sadanie fashion - torpedoed the OP's attempt by pointing out that the polls showing a Romney victory over Obama turned out to be incorrect.

I stated as much, and then you offered this non sequitur. Utah has voted overwhelmingly to keep marriage between a man and a woman. I agree with Sadanie: polls mean nothing.

 

Except the argument for same sex marriage is not the same argument for pedophilia. I will keep reminding you of that fact every time you moronically post it.

 

Uh, heterosexuality has not been proven to be genetic.

Pedophilia is the sexual attraction to prepubescent children. Children can not consent to sex, so..........

 

2 things. 1)nobody is saying to ignore any other or of marriage. That is your strawman. 2)they don't have the same argument as same sex marriage.

 

Which is a lie and all I have to bring up is pedpohile marriage to prove it. You do not want all marriages legal.

Then name your gay marriage argument that is specific only for gay marriage that no other sexual preference can use.

This is the fallacy you cannot get around in your argument.

 

Well, he didn't ask me about pedophilia, but about "all other sexual preferences", which is too general to address.

 

It is an example though. And one he tried to use on this page.

 

Society chose slavery for hundreds of years. Not every change is a step backwards.

No, this is contrary to fact. Sexual orientation is NOT genetic. It isn't passed from one generation to the next. If you could magically eliminate all current homosexuals, the next generation would have just as many.

Of course not. I said there are minorities who should be discriminated on the merits - the insane, the criminals, the pedophiles. It's a question of whether, and how, society is protecting itself from genuine danger. Not just personal distaste, but danger.

I'm not sure I see your point here. Your quote is correct. Yes, pedophilia is a sexual orientation. Yes, it's physiologic rather than sociologic. AND it's dangerous. Nobody is claiming that pedophiles have a right to marry children. Be serious.

You have to make an argument before I can duck an argument.

 

And IF something is protected by the US Constitution, no state vote can override it. So the question to be decided is, is the right to marry a constitutionally protected right, or can it be voted away? Right now, every court considering this question is having no difficulty deciding it can't be voted away.

 

I think he grasps it, because otherwise he'd be too stupid to post anything at all. But what's important here is that (1) Even the most moronic, irrelevant, or dishonest argument is good enough if one has enough prejudice; and (2) Many people share that prejudice and are perfectly content to be lying morons provided their prejudices are cast into law.

 

So far, all you've provided is assertions about an assumed "genetic factual evidence", which turns out to be false. You are wrong about it. Try again.

But you have not given any factually correct argument. So what you've given boils down to, you oppose it. We know that.

I suppose it's a question of who bears the burden here. Should those being discriminated against show why they shouldn't be, or should those doing the discrimination have to show why they're doing so.

 

But it has been proven to be natural, as all creatures in nature that are not asexual, including humans, must have heterosexual sex in order to naturally procreate (sexual intercourse that causes pregnancy).

 

You have to be kidding. You need a lesson in the genetic factual evidence of heterosexuality?

My God.

From the time of puberty on, men make sex cells (in the form of sperm cells) continuously. In contrast, by the time a woman is born, she has made all of the eggs that she will ever have. As she reaches puberty, the eggs begin to develop and get released, and this process continues until menopause. In both males and females, the production of sex cells involves meiosis, a type of cell division whereby our two sets of genetic instructions are reduced to one set for the sex cell.

So far we've talked about sex cells and sex organs, and you might be wondering when we'd get around to the act of sex itself. Well, here we go -- the moment when the male and female sex organs and sex cells get together. While there are many ways in which a man and a woman can engage in sexual behavior together, vaginal intercourse, in which a man's penis is inserted into a woman's vagina, is the method by which sperm meets egg.

As we've discussed, the male and the female reproductive system are designed to work together for this purpose -- the penis becomes erect to facilitate entrance to the vagina, for example, and both men and women excrete fluids that make that passage easier. These steps are part of the sexual response cycle. Both men and women experience the various phases of the cycle, from excitement to plateau to orgasm to resolution.

During the first two phases, both men and women's bodies are undergoing physical changes which include increased blood flow to the genitals as well as an increase in pulse, blood pressure and body temperature. As intercourse continues, the man reaches a point at which muscle contractions in the epididymis, prostate and seminal vesicles propel semen from the penis into the woman's vagina. The man's orgasm almost always happens at the same time as this ejaculation, and after that, the man begins to enter the resolution phase. Men and women experience the sexual response cycle at different speeds, so a woman may not experience an orgasm at the same time as a man, which has led to speculation that the female orgasm is a "happy accident," as it's not necessary for fertilization. Some researchers, however, believe that if a woman orgasms when a man does, the muscle contractions in her body will cause the cervix to dip and contract, making it easier for the sperm in the semen to begin their journey.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/human-biology/human-reproduction8.htm


It is so sad you actually had to have basic human sexual reproduction and procreation explained.

Now that you have been given the proof of heterosexuality being genetic don't ask me to explain it again.

Why are you slipping on the tights and cape for other people's arguments? Same challenge. I'm asking for your argument for gay marriage that is specific and exclusive to gay marriage and you can't provide it.

Can you do it superhero?

No law in federal history was created without argument for or against it. Your inability to defend your position only proves I've won when you can't even make the argument for your own position.

 

And homosexuality is also natural, as it appears in thousands of species and has been part of human history for all of recorded time.

 

How is genetics remotely relevant to whether a minority faces discrimination for no compelling reason? Do you even understand the issue here? Hint: it is NOT genetics.

Sorry, but this is not only wrong, it's irrelevant. Sexual orientation is NOT genetic, and sexual orientation is NOT a reason for discriminating against a minority. HOW people breed is not related to who they're attracted to.

Sexual orientation is neither genetic nor relevant. But you ought to stop and THINK for a moment. If orientation were genetic, it would be passed on. It isn't. If left-handed people were prohibited from marrying, would that be discrimination? THINK for once!

The question here is, should existing, often long-lasting emotional commitments be honored or prohibited? The relationships themselves do not change. Only the legalities.

If you are serious, you are stunningly ignorant. How can you be "against homosexuality"? Sexual orientation is a human characteristic, and it's a variable characteristic. It happens. Being "against homosexuality" is like being against rain. Homosexuality is not a matter of morality, it's a matter of physiology. What you are doing is arguing in favor of punishing those you see as "different". If you really think those whose orientation is different from yours are immoral, you are profoundly wrong. You don't know what orientation is, you don't know what morality is, you don't know what genetics is, you don't know what discrimination is. All you know is that you wish those you hate to suffer becasuse you hate them.

 

And that is the truth.

 

I'm tired of having my posts deleted Flint so let's keep it very simple.

Do you understand the human species would not survive naturally without heterosexual sex? Let's start there.

 

And you're already wrong. The human species would not survive without sex. Homosexuals become biological parents all the time, and it works just fine. They are no less fertile. The ability to breed has absolutely nothing to do with the sexual orientation. Can we agree on that much?

 

I asked you a question.

Why are you trying to run from the word heterosexual sex? Its not sex but heterosexual sex. Do you deny this?

Of course we can. I never denied a homosexual cannot have heterosexual sex. You are only making my point for me. Homosexuals by their very existence cannot procreate the species because of their sexual orientation. So why would they engage in a different orientation which is 180 degrees different than the very definition of their own?

And why can't you answer the basic question? Can the human species survive naturally without heterosexual sex?

 

We need to have common terminology. Homosexuals very commonly engage in what you are calling "heterosexual sex". They frequently become parents. And heterosexuals commonly engage in anal and oral intercourse as well, which does not cause pregnancy.

Except that they DO! They become parents all the time.

For a variety of reasons. For many, staying in the closet meant marrying someone of the opposite sex and breeding. For others, it's experimentation.

Your question presumes its own answer, because we have not defined our terms. The human species can't survive without vaginal sex.

I'm struggling as hard as I can to separate the orientation from the procreation, because these are entirely different things. I believe that using an orientation term to refer to a biological activity is misleading. Certainly it's misleading you.

So may I suggest we refer to homosexual and heterosexual as orientations. Or preferences, if you wish. There is no such thing as "heterosexual sex". There is vaginal sex, anal sex, oral sex. People of all orientations engage in all of these.

Now, to be really generous, your basic question is actually quite interesting, once we remove the misleading labels. The question is, what percentage of the human population would need to become parents, in order for the species to continue? Or to put it another way, how many childless people (for whatever reason) would be too many for continuation of the species? (My wife and I have never been parents, and there are many childless couples. So clearly not everyone needs to breed).

If we say for the sake of simplicity that homosexuals NEVER breed, would that present a threat? Well, some of them DO breed, but then again many heterosexuals like me do not. So there's no immediate danger of the species dying out.

 

Of course it can. It's called artificial insemination. You can even use a turkey baster if you wanna get down to the nitty gritty. No sex is necessary for procreation.

 

But if I'm understanding him correctly, he would call the turkey baster approach "heterosexual sex" because it inserts sperm into a vagina.

 

How in the hell could anyone call that sex? That's completely ridiculous.