Try to keep up, hon.

Abortion, however, was decided by 9 lawyers who have a job for life (regardless of senility), who are answerable to no one, and whose historical “hit parade” includes the Dredd Scott decision.

And it doesn’t really matter to me if you’re born that way. So are paranoids, schizophrenics, and people who are born missing various parts of their bodies. Abnormalities do not automatically confer special rights, nor do they give anyone the right to change the definition of marriage.

One of the required attributes of marriage is the possibility of procreation. While there may be an occasional circumstance where a male and a female cannot have children, that does not violate the nature of the relationship. However, a homosexual pairing by its very nature excludes the possibility of procreation, and therefore cannot by the natural law be a marriage.

The entire pro-gay-”marriage” argument, when you clear out all of the irrelevancies and misstatements of so-called “equal rights” which are actually SPECIAL rights (gays have a right to marry someone of the opposite sex, just like anyone else), is based upon a simple emotional – and not very mature or well-thought-out – argument.

Read up nitwit: http://rainbowallianceopenfaith.homestead.com/TVC_APA.html

I agree with your statement sir..

what is the procreation percentage of homosexual marriage couples?

Why don’t you go and have a wank with your little weiner, calm down and realise just how obnoxious and odious you are to most of the decent people posting here.

Then go ahead and make adultery illegal.

After that we can talk about how to treat other people’s relationships.

The garbage is though, and I’m glad you got that idea.

I never heard about an argument that science was supposed to lead to morality. Scientists tend to leave that to the leaders, and generals. Mind you there are some exceptions where scientists do try to meddle in moral affairs.

http://www.reformation.org/leo-szilard.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human

There are a couple of ways that humans are not like animals, apart from the opposable thumb and other anatomical features. One is war, very few other animals are that inconsiderate. The other is garbage. Homo sapiens is not only the only animal but the only living thing on this planet that produces garbage toxic not only to itself but to every other living creature on earth.

No other living creature is that inconsiderate.

You just don’t like that science and logic are not bolstering your bullshit. One doesn’t even need to be a scientist to know your views are wrong. You keep thinking that your views should be enshrined into law, and you keep acting like having equality before the law means you and those like you personally have to accept it. The rights of equality are not rationally up to majority opinion (aka mob rule), but are inherent in all. Sexuality of others is not your decision, how they act upon that sexuality is not your business. You keep dancing around the question of “equality before the law” and in this case mocking it in an attempt to sidestep the central question of equality before the law. You don’t like the possibility that gay people will have equality before the law. Tough shit.

In my example, it would be a perfectly acceptable mechanism for the issue of women working instead of staying at home with the children. And if the majority of the population voted for a proposition that would make it illegal women with children to seek employment (and they did the voting twice), women would then be whiners, because they are losers… right?

You defend marriage within its religious context (as a celebration of life, etc). I don’t think anyone here is asking that religious institutions begin performing weddings for homosexuals.

The argument here is the concept of marriage as it is defined by the law of the land, and within the context of a lawful society. Therein, no definition of marriage proscribes, not even implies, the purpose to be procreation, or celebration of procreation. It simply defines it as a union of two people. Other laws define various rights, privileges and obligations that are conferred to those who are married. Vast majority of these rights and privileges have nothing to do with celebration of heterosexuality; they tend to deal with common property, decisions to be made in each other’s name, right to succession, etc.

As I said, many of these privileges have already been given by the law to homosexuals in the form of “unions”. This tells us that the society does NOT reject homosexuality as a social concept, nor does it reject the legitimacy of claims by homosexuals to the rights that stem from this concept. The legal problem with such unions is pretty much the same as was the legal problem with the “Plessy” decision — separate but equal is essentially exactly what’s wrong with this one (and what was wrong with the ‘Plessy’) — it can never be equal until it is actually no longer separate. Mind you, this is not comparing apples to oranges (let us for a moment accept your argument that colour of skin is not in the same way pre-determined as is homosexuality); from an abstract legal point of view, a separate-but-equal doctrine fails, no matter what.

Actually all the research the APA did up until the 1970s (before they declassified it as a mental illness due to political pressure) support my assertions. In addition, the APA never provided research to support their move to declassify homosexuality as such. Do your homework and look it up.

Ah, name-calling. The last refuge of those who have no salient argument for the topic at hand.

On one hand you demand scientific proof, dismissing argument as having no proof. Yet provide ZERO scientific data to backup your assertions.

We are left to assume that your assertions are based on a mythical god and book of badly translated fairy tales from the middle ages, well because that is the typical profile of those who would deny this civil right to gays.

Our perspective is humane, compassionate and has science to back it up. Your perspective is narrow minded, hurtful, and based on anti-science.

You are by definition a lemming. The absolution of your position puts you in the same category as racists, bigots, and an antiquated mentality.

A large enough group of people can make any kind of decision seem valid if majority of them vote for it in a referendum. This does not automatically mean such decision is correct, never mind constitutional. If a group of people decides that, because divorce rates are rapidly growing because women are allowed to work, instead of raise children, to prohibit women from working, it would be a democratic decision made by the majority, but it would be wrong and unconstitutional.

The argument about the democratic process is not necessarily strong.