• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

House to pay up to $520 per hour to defend gay marriage ban

Deuce said:
So why not just come out and say it? Why was it like pulling teeth to get you to admit that you don't think gay couples deserve the same rights as straight couples?
Click to expand...

Like pulling teeth? Are you dense? I've said it over and over and over again in this thread. Here, one more time for the guy in the back . . . When it comes to creating life, homosexual couples do not deserve the same "rights" as hetero couples. THEY LACK THE ABILITY TO CREATE LIFE NATURALLY.
 
Jerry said:
$500,000 doesn't even show up as a blip on the radar.
Click to expand...

And yet we almost didn't pass the budget this year because of 62,000 spent on abortions collected in local funds in DC.

Funny how that works.
 
Hand said:
Like pulling teeth? Are you dense? I've said it over and over and over again in this thread. Here, one more time for the guy in the back . . . When it comes to creating life, homosexual couples do not deserve the same "rights" as hetero couples. THEY LACK THE ABILITY TO CREATE LIFE NATURALLY.
Click to expand...

We're talking about marriage, for ****'s sake. You're discriminating against homosexuals in regards to their right to marriage, but you tried to act like this wasn't what you were doing.
 
Hand said:
Like pulling teeth? Are you dense? I've said it over and over and over again in this thread. Here, one more time for the guy in the back . . . When it comes to creating life, homosexual couples do not deserve the same "rights" as hetero couples. THEY LACK THE ABILITY TO CREATE LIFE NATURALLY.
Click to expand...

This is basically the "marriage is an institution for procreation" argument. If that were the case, then infertile couples, elderly couples, and couples that didn't want to have children, would all be excluded from marriage. Your argument is fallacious. You are specifically targeting same sex couples.
 
Hand said:
Like pulling teeth? Are you dense? I've said it over and over and over again in this thread. Here, one more time for the guy in the back . . . When it comes to creating life, homosexual couples do not deserve the same "rights" as hetero couples. THEY LACK THE ABILITY TO CREATE LIFE NATURALLY.
Click to expand...

Diabetics lack the ability to sustain life naturally. Can we treat them like second class citizens too? ****ing diabetics!
 
CriticalThought said:
Let's play slippery slope.

Denying a medical technology to a group of people based upon what some subjectively argue that nature dictates sets a precedent by which other technologies could be denied. Next someone could be denied pain killers because someone feels that people naturally should feel pain. Someone could be denied antibiotics because someone believes that people should naturally fight off infection without the aid of such medicines.

Let's consider social consequences.

Individuals will be required to submit to fertility exams before marriage so an individual can ensure that they are capable of producing offspring with their prospective mate and many divorces may become predicated on a person having low fertility or becoming infertile.

Let's consider practicality.

In order to enforce a ban on artificial procreation technologies, any child who is born with the illegal use of such technology will have to be stripped from their parents.

And so forth and so on.

Now it is your turn. What are the consequences that you so dread by allowing same sex and infertile couples to use such technologies?
Click to expand...

Oh would you quit with this bull**** narrative where pain and walking and flying are even in the same universe as the ability to create life. Respect it. You'll be better for it.

Fertility exams before marriage? Divorce? People get married all the time without knowing they are infertile. It's always a possibility. 50% of the people that get married divorce anyways and I'm not afraid of a few divorces by shallow people.

Now why would someone risk having this child, this part of them they couldn't live without, taken from them? Seems pretty selfish.

The science of artificial procreation has only been around thirty years. We've basically got two, maybe three generations of APT on the planet. With hetero couples, the greatest unknown lies in using sperm and or eggs that are infertile and forcing the issue (which we can do). We don't know what sort of mutations can come from using the genes from an infertile egg and or sperm. With homosexual couples, the same risk exists with regard to infertility.
 
Hand said:
With hetero couples, the greatest unknown lies in using sperm and or eggs that are infertile and forcing the issue (which we can do). We don't know what sort of mutations can come from using the genes from an infertile egg and or sperm. With homosexual couples, the same risk exists with regard to infertility.
Click to expand...

ROFL! Really? An infertile egg or sperm? You are incredibly ignorant of what they actually do.

You can't use an infertile egg or sperm for the purpose of forming an embryo. Infertility in females typically refers to abnormalities in anatomy such as in the fallopian tubes of the female not in their eggs. In order to bypass the damaged plumbing they extract eggs directly from the ovaries and implant them in the womb. They may fertilize the egg in a test tube with sperm with from the husband before the implant it.

Male infertility is also usually from either damaged plumbing or a low sperm count or sperm with low motility. The sperm itself is perfectly capable of fertilizing an egg.

If you are going to argue that such technologies should be prohibited, then you should probably actually know what the technologies are instead of spouting nonsense that shows you are clearly uneducated on the topic.

If somebody did have infertile eggs or sperm then they would not be capable of reproducing, even with our current level of technology.
 
Last edited:
CriticalThought said:
ROFL! Really? An infertile egg or sperm? You are incredibly ignorant of what they actually do.

You can't use an infertile egg or sperm for the purpose of forming an embryo. Infertilily in females typically refers to abnormaliteis in anatomy such as in the fallopain tubes of the female not in their eggs. In order to bypass the damaged plumbing they extract eggs directly from the ovaries and implant them in the womb. They may fertilize the egg in a testtube with sperm with from the husband before the implant it.

Male inferitliy is also usually from either damaged plumbing or a low sperm count or sperm with low motility. The sperm itself is perfectly capable of fertilzing an egg.

If you are going to argue that such technologies should be prohibited, then you should probably actually know what the technologies are instead of spouting nonsense that shows you are claerly uneducated on the topic.
Click to expand...

You have no idea what you're talking about. You should stop now.
 
Hand said:
You have no idea what you're talking about. You should stop now.
Click to expand...

Okay, please. Provide me a link that demonstrates people using infertile eggs or sperm to create human life.
 
Hand said:
You have no idea what you're talking about. You should stop now.
Click to expand...

You should stop dodging the issue of marriage and why you are discriminating against homosexuals with respect to the right to marry. You would argue for a ban on artificial procreation. We get it. I understand. I don't agree, but I understand. What I don't understand is why you oppose same-sex marriage but not straight marriage even though straight marriage is responsible for a vastly higher number of instances of artificial procreation.

(actually I do understand. It's because you dislike the thought of same-sex marriage being legal and needed to attach a reason to it)

(edit: and you're completely wrong about how this works. it functions exactly as CT describes)
 
Last edited:
Hand said:
You have no idea what you're talking about. You should stop now.
Click to expand...

Actually, he pretty much correct.

What Causes Female Infertility?

Infertility: Causes - MayoClinic.com

Most of the time, at least one of the two people within a couple could naturally have/make children and there are even sometimes when the problem is the couple (slow sperm with a hostile uterus).

So do you also want to outlaw agreements between consenting adults to have sex with someone outside of the marriage for the sole purpose of pregnancy? How would you enforce this? Would you DNA test every child born just to make sure that they were the actual product of the husband and wife? And who would get into trouble legally if the child wasn't the husband's? Just the wife? And then how do you propose we deal with those women who agree to surrogate through sex with the husband? How do you ensure that the surrogate was really a surrogate and not just a woman who had an unexpected pregnancy and good friends willing to adopt the child? Do you have to DNA test every child born to see who their parents are? Do you know how much that would cost?

Don't forget to work on getting those laws in Arizona, Illinois, Indiana, Utah, and Wisconsin changed that say that first cousins can only legally get married if they are of a certain age (anywhere from 50-65 or older) or cannot reproduce together. Those laws pretty much throw out any argument that legal marriage is for reproduction. All those marriages are recognized by the US government as legal marriages.

State Laws Regarding Marriages Between First Cousins

Don't get me wrong, I have issues with post-menopausal IVF but that doesn't mean that I would deny anyone a right to marry because of it or even try to outlaw it. I have strong moral objections to it for the health of the mother and the child/children and for the fact that there are a lot of children out there that need to be adopted. Trying to outlaw something on moral objections alone though isn't right.

I believe most people feel that those who cannot reproduce naturally within a loving couple (whether opposite sex or same sex), should consider adoption before IVF but most of those same people do not believe that it is right to outlaw technology that could help a couple have their own children. It is a part of most people's basic nature to try to pass on their genes to future generations. And how do you know that some very good genes haven't been passed on via IVF? It is quite possible that at least some have.
 
CriticalThought said:
This is basically the "marriage is an institution for procreation" argument. If that were the case, then infertile couples, elderly couples, and couples that didn't want to have children, would all be excluded from marriage. Your argument is fallacious. You are specifically targeting same sex couples.
Click to expand...

Maybe this will help (though I really doubt you will like it one bit)

Since gay lesbian and whatever cannot reproduce and gay lesbian and whatever isnsist on facts in normal male female couples dictating what can and cannot be...

Some hetero's cannot reproduce, hence it shall be that gays neither reproduce, or adopt.

Work for you? You want to use a normally sexually orientation fact to suppport yours go for it
 
Ikari said:
Diabetics lack the ability to sustain life naturally. Can we treat them like second class citizens too? ****ing diabetics!
Click to expand...

Red Herring
 
sweEt Mauritius said:
The right not to be discriminated against in marriage or any other area, including housing, employment, etc. That's what I'm missing.



Visibility helps members of the LGBT community realize that they are not alone and that there are supportive people out there, not just hateful, ignorant, self-righteous people who condemn them.

No private citizen is being told or forced to accept anyone. But the government is a different story. Since there is no compelling government interest in discriminating against gay people, then the government can't discriminate or allow discrimination.



Bottom line is that if people are not harming society or themselves, there should be universal acceptance. LGBT people aren't harming anyone, so there should be universal acceptance, yes. People who are vehemently against gays, to use your example, ARE harming multiple groups of people, so that is a different matter.



I honestly don't even understand what you're trying to say here, and I can see this discussion is going nowhere.
Click to expand...

Of course not in circles you go and I am not right you are. btw the answer to your questions are all in your arguments.

We just want to be left alone, right back to the begining

We want the same rights... eveyone should have to deal with us like it or not housing employment etc etc

[:tunes:]Ohhhhhhhh the wheels on the buss go round and round[/:tunes:}p

Cry to somene who cares, argue with someone you believe you can win against or give it up!
 
Last edited:
as if said:
Maybe this will help (though I really doubt you will like it one bit)

Since gay lesbian and whatever cannot reproduce and gay lesbian and whatever isnsist on facts in normal male female couples dictating what can and cannot be...

Some hetero's cannot reproduce, hence it shall be that gays neither reproduce, or adopt.

Work for you? You want to use a normally sexually orientation fact to suppport yours go for it
Click to expand...

This was pretty incoherent.
 
winston53660 said:
I have an implanted defibrillator hooked up to my heart that's not natural either.

Should I unhook it to be "natural".
Click to expand...

Yet another typical gay behavior.

I dont conform to you so I cannot be right.

Stop stalking me I dont care if you get off on being reported.

Get a hobby
 
as if said:
Yet another typical gay behavior.

I dont conform to you so I cannot be right.

Stop stalking me I dont care if you get off on being reported.

Get a hobby
Click to expand...


Report away, any member is allowed to post here and respond to posts within the rules of the forum.
 
as if said:
Yet another typical gay behavior.

I dont conform to you so I cannot be right.

Stop stalking me I dont care if you get off on being reported.

Get a hobby
Click to expand...

Unhooking defibrillators is typical gay behavior?
 
as if said:
Yet another typical gay behavior.

I dont conform to you so I cannot be right.

Stop stalking me I dont care if you get off on being reported.

Get a hobby
Click to expand...

Standard victim card tactic.
Aren't you doing the same thing? You're demanding everyone else conform to your ideas.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom