[W:363]accepting gay as normal

[Irredentist]

That's like saying guns don't kill people, it's the bullets.

Well that's true. A gun doesn't kill people unless you point it at them and shoot.

 

[dixon01767]

Heterosexual sex does not perpetuate the human species in and of itself. Pregnancy and childbirth perpetuates the human species. Heterosexual sex is just the most common way of achieving that. But it is not the only one.

Well, my dog and I could procreate with the assistance of a surrogate mother.

 

[Lisa]

Well, my dog and I could procreate with the assistance of a surrogate mother.

You apparently didn't pass your high school biology class.

Fertilization is the culminating event in sexual reproduction and requires the recognition and fusion of the haploid sperm and egg to form a new diploid organism. Specificity in these recognition events is one reason why sperm and eggs from different species are not normally compatible.

 

[roguenuke]

Well, my dog and I could procreate with the assistance of a surrogate mother.

No. You would need a geneticist with pioneering technology that allows for cross-species (cross family/order even) breeding to achieve that. What separates species is their ability to procreate with each other in a way that results in offspring that also can procreate. Even those species that exist that are cross breeds, hybrids (liger, mule, etc) are in the same bottom level classifications. Liger for example is from a panthera leo and panthera tigris. Killer bees come from African bees and honey bees. Mules are from horses and donkeys, which are both in the Equine family. Coyotes and wolves are in the same family, Canines (wolves can breed with domestic dogs, which are also in that family). Humans are not even close to any of those other animals.

You cannot procreate with your dog, even with a surrogate mother.

 

[roguenuke]

Well, one perpetuates the human species and the other does not. My relationship with my left hand is human sexuality but I don't consider it no different than heterosexual relationships. And while homosexual behavior is natural, the concept of homosexuality as an inherent trait of an individual is purely a human invention. Animals in nature engage in homosexual behavior but they return to the opposite sex to perpetuate the species.

But since humans do not need to perpetuate the human species through mindless sexual activity (in fact, that is what leads to many abortions), it could easily be argued that homosexuality does no harm to the perpetuation of the human species, so it is irrelevant to whether it is normal, natural, or if that makes it a negative thing. Despite what some people believe, indefinite, uncontrolled perpetuation of the human species is not a good thing. Having things that slow that breeding down is a good thing. Homosexuality does that.

 

[Quag]

Well that's true. A gun doesn't kill people unless you point it at them and shoot.

If dropped from a great height it could land on someones head and kill them

 

[nickchris17]

I don't see anything wrong with people doing gay stuff as long as they're consenting. Live and let live. It doesn't hurt anybody.

 

[dixon01767]

You apparently didn't pass your high school biology class.

Id probably be the one who donates the sperm, don't ya think. Dog would be like the gay partner in a gay relationship that has no involvement.

 

[dixon01767]

No. You would need a geneticist with pioneering technology that allows for cross-species (cross family/order even) breeding to achieve that. What separates species is their ability to procreate with each other in a way that results in offspring that also can procreate. Even those species that exist that are cross breeds, hybrids (liger, mule, etc) are in the same bottom level classifications. Liger for example is from a panthera leo and panthera tigris. Killer bees come from African bees and honey bees. Mules are from horses and donkeys, which are both in the Equine family. Coyotes and wolves are in the same family, Canines (wolves can breed with domestic dogs, which are also in that family). Humans are not even close to any of those other animals.

You cannot procreate with your dog, even with a surrogate mother.

Id probably be the one who donates the sperm, don't ya think. Dog would be like the gay partner in a gay relationship that has no involvement.

 

[dixon01767]

But since humans do not need to perpetuate the human species through mindless sexual activity (in fact, that is what leads to many abortions), it could easily be argued that homosexuality does no harm to the perpetuation of the human species, so it is irrelevant to whether it is normal, natural, or if that makes it a negative thing.

Kind of like my relationship with my left hand except I don't expect the government to endorse my relationship and give me tax breaks because of it.

 

[roguenuke]

Kind of like my relationship with my left hand except I don't expect the government to endorse my relationship and give me tax breaks because of it.

Your relationship with your hand doesnt need tax benefits or legal rights, unlike an actual relationship with another person. So no not like relationship with your hand at all, since your hand has no separate rights or even consciousness.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

 

[roguenuke]

Id probably be the one who donates the sperm, don't ya think. Dog would be like the gay partner in a gay relationship that has no involvement.

Not how it works. Both can donate sperm, mix, and never know which is the father.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

 

[dixon01767]

Your relationship with your hand doesnt need tax benefits or legal rights, unlike an actual relationship with another person. So no not like relationship with your hand at all, since your hand has no separate rights or even consciousness.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

Gays have been in relationships for a LONG time in human history without any such license.

 

[dixon01767]

Not how it works. Both can donate sperm, mix, and never know which is the father.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

I suspect you just made that up and doubt that fertility clinics practice mixing together sperm samples.

 

[roguenuke]

Gays have been in relationships for a LONG time in human history without any such license.

As had heterosexuals before them. But since two people of the opposite sex can get in an arrangement that legally makes them next of kin, spouses, regardless of their ability or even desire to make babies, there is no legitimate legal reason not to also allow two people of the same sex to do the same thing, enter the same arrangement.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

 

[roguenuke]

I suspect you just made that up and doubt that fertility clinics practice mixing together sperm samples.

Not saying it is common, only that it is possible.

As is this.

How Gay Dads Decide Whose Sperm to Use for In Vitro Fertilization | International Fertility Law Group

Simply having one group of eggs fertilized by one sperm donor, and another by the other, put both into the surrogate, and same thing. Pretty much what this couple did.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

 

[Deuce]

Gays have been in relationships for a LONG time in human history without any such license.

Black people lived in the US without freedom for a long time too.

 

[dixon01767]

As had heterosexuals before them. But since two people of the opposite sex can get in an arrangement that legally makes them next of kin, spouses, regardless of their ability or even desire to make babies, there is no legitimate legal reason not to also allow two people of the same sex to do the same thing,

For the same reason statutes such as this one present in all 50 states, only applies to married men and women.

Sec. 160.204. PRESUMPTION OF PATERNITY. (a) A man is presumed to be the father of a child if:

(1) he is married to the mother of the child and the child is born during the marriage;

Just as it was under BC Roman law

Mater semper certa est ("The mother is always certain")
"pater semper incertus est" ("The father is always uncertain")
"pater est, quem nuptiae demonstrant" ("father is to whom marriage points")....

BECAUSE only men and women procreate REGARDLESS of their sexual orientation which is irrelevant.

 

[Irredentist]

For the same reason statutes such as this one present in all 50 states, only applies to married men and women.

Sec. 160.204. PRESUMPTION OF PATERNITY. (a) A man is presumed to be the father of a child if:

(1) he is married to the mother of the child and the child is born during the marriage;

Just as it was under BC Roman law

Mater semper certa est ("The mother is always certain")
"pater semper incertus est" ("The father is always uncertain")
"pater est, quem nuptiae demonstrant" ("father is to whom marriage points")....

BECAUSE only men and women procreate REGARDLESS of their sexual orientation which is irrelevant.

These statues no longer seem relevant now that we have access to genetic testing to determine who is in fact, truly the father. We do not need to presume, and fathers do not need to be uncertain. Furthermore, marriages is becoming increasingly dissasociated from childbearing, as more and more young people decide not to have children.

 

[roguenuke]

For the same reason statutes such as this one present in all 50 states, only applies to married men and women.

Sec. 160.204. PRESUMPTION OF PATERNITY. (a) A man is presumed to be the father of a child if:

(1) he is married to the mother of the child and the child is born during the marriage;

Just as it was under BC Roman law

Mater semper certa est ("The mother is always certain")
"pater semper incertus est" ("The father is always uncertain")
"pater est, quem nuptiae demonstrant" ("father is to whom marriage points")....

BECAUSE only men and women procreate REGARDLESS of their sexual orientation which is irrelevant.

Except that we have grown out of that and can now determine the actual father of a child. Old laws are not a reason for current marriage laws, especially not since we not only allow people who cannot have children to marry of the opposite sex (neither of my parents could have more children by their divorce, my father has already remarried, a woman who also cannot herself have children, and my mother is legally allowed to marry), but there are also laws that say certain heterosexual couples can only legally marry if they cannot procreate.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

 

[dixon01767]

Not saying it is common, only that it is possible.

As is this.

How Gay Dads Decide Whose Sperm to Use for In Vitro Fertilization | International Fertility Law Group

Simply having one group of eggs fertilized by one sperm donor, and another by the other, put both into the surrogate, and same thing. Pretty much what this couple did.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

We can do the same with my dog and he wont understand that he never had a chance at being the father.

 

[dixon01767]

Except that we have grown out of that and can now determine the actual father of a child. Old laws are not a reason for current marriage laws, especially not since we not only allow people who cannot have children to marry of the opposite sex (neither of my parents could have more children by their divorce, my father has already remarried, a woman who also cannot herself have children, and my mother is legally allowed to marry), but there are also laws that say certain heterosexual couples can only legally marry if they cannot procreate.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

The only concern was unmarried couples procreating and they had no concern for married couples not procreating. Its like my ex wife who took birth control pills for years only to find out in her second marriage that she never had the ability to procreate. Doesn't negate the fact that Birth control pills are prescribed to prevent pregnancy.

 

[roguenuke]

The only concern was unmarried couples procreating and they had no concern for married couples not procreating. Its like my ex wife who took birth control pills for years only to find out in her second marriage that she never had the ability to procreate. Doesn't negate the fact that Birth control pills are prescribed to prevent pregnancy.

Birth control pills can be prescribed for other things, including regulating hormones and alleviating the affects of a period.

And that does not negate the fact that marriage now, currently is about making two people a family, legally, regardless if they will or are able to have children. It doesnt matter your feelings on it or what you think it was meant to do in the past. It currently exists mainly for making two people legal family and has little to nothing to do with children.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

 

[roguenuke]

We can do the same with my dog and he wont understand that he never had a chance at being the father.

No you cant. Regardless of your attempts at trying to equate your dog or hand to a person, they are not equivalent. Both those men could easily become a father at the same time even, from the same pregnancy. The same as if a single man donated his sperm to a surrogate mother because his wife could not have children.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

 

[dixon01767]

Birth control pills can be prescribed for other things, including regulating hormones and alleviating the affects of a period.

Hers were prescribed to prevent pregnancy soooooo kind of irrelevant here.

And that does not negate the fact that marriage now, currently is about making two people a family, legally, regardless if they will or are able to have children.

Heterosexual sex has a tendency to lead to pregnancy. The creation of a family. Homosexual sex has no such tendency. ANY two people could form a family through other means. Really nothing special about being homosexual that warrants special treatment.