Total Posts:84|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Anti Same Sex Marriage argument

Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2013 4:09:37 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Dear people who argue against same sex marriage using the "procreation" argument.

What is the procreation argument, well it comes out sounding something like two men and two women can't have children with each other, ergo same sex marriage should not be allowed.

Now to anyone who thinks this is a knock down argument against SSM I want you to ask your self the following questions......

1) Should the inability of a couple to produce babies with one another dis-qualify that couple from being being able to marry ?

2) In the case where a couple can but refuses to produces children with one another does this refusal dis-qualify that couple from being able to marry ?

99% of you will answer no to both.

As such could you please stop bringing up the in-ability of a same sex couple to produces babies with one another as some sort of knock down argument against same sex marriage.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2013 4:11:55 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/29/2013 4:09:37 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
Dear people who argue against same sex marriage using the "procreation" argument.

What is the procreation argument, well it comes out sounding something like two men and two women can't have children with each other, ergo same sex marriage should not be allowed.

Correction two men or two woman can't have children with each other, ergo same sex marriage should not be allowed.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Fruitytree
Posts: 2,176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2013 4:55:29 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Well, it's more than how you put it,

You need to define marriage first, marriage is a union contract, most of the time religious! and all the time between a man and a woman (at this is the combination that can result in offspring naturally without plan!)

now why do this couple combination need this special contract?!

Because they can have Kids, and the rights and obligations of them towards the child need to be known, as much as their rights and obligations towards each other.

That's how the argument works, marriage is not just a union, it's more than that! something that is not applicable to same sex sinful union !

Now you say how about male/female combination that wouldn't give offspring? well this is a special anomaly in a general category that works, and it just falls under the category! the same rules apply, especially that we've seen couples labelled as infertile end up having a child! which will never happen to who you know.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2013 5:00:05 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/29/2013 4:09:37 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
Dear people who argue against same sex marriage using the "procreation" argument.

What is the procreation argument, well it comes out sounding something like two men and two women can't have children with each other, ergo same sex marriage should not be allowed.

Now to anyone who thinks this is a knock down argument against SSM I want you to ask your self the following questions......

1) Should the inability of a couple to produce babies with one another dis-qualify that couple from being being able to marry ?

How often do we know this before a couple has tried to concieve??

2) In the case where a couple can but refuses to produces children with one another does this refusal dis-qualify that couple from being able to marry ?

Is it possible that as they mature they might change their mind and want children??

99% of you will answer no to both.

As such could you please stop bringing up the in-ability of a same sex couple to produces babies with one another as some sort of knock down argument against same sex marriage.

This argument perfectly illustrates the different ways that we look at marriage. For gays it's about gaining benefits and acceptance, for heteros it's about commitment and family. Therein lies the change that we don't want to see.

Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2013 5:36:01 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/29/2013 5:00:05 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 5/29/2013 4:09:37 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
Dear people who argue against same sex marriage using the "procreation" argument.

What is the procreation argument, well it comes out sounding something like two men and two women can't have children with each other, ergo same sex marriage should not be allowed.

Now to anyone who thinks this is a knock down argument against SSM I want you to ask your self the following questions......

1) Should the inability of a couple to produce babies with one another dis-qualify that couple from being being able to marry ?

How often do we know this before a couple has tried to concieve??

Relevance ?

Scenario 1) Couple has tried once a week
Scenario 2) Couple tries every now and then
Scenario 3) Couple rarely tries
Scenario 4) Couple has never tried

Is your answer different based on the different scenarios or are you trying to avoid answering the question ?

Show relevance or answer the question please.


2) In the case where a couple can but refuses to produces children with one another does this refusal dis-qualify that couple from being able to marry ?

Is it possible that as they mature they might change their mind and want children??

Putting aside the insinuation that choosing not to have kids is immature, Yes it possible that they might change their mind.

Now answer the question.

99% of you will answer no to both.

As such could you please stop bringing up the in-ability of a same sex couple to produces babies with one another as some sort of knock down argument against same sex marriage.

This argument perfectly illustrates the different ways that we look at marriage. For gays it's about gaining benefits and acceptance, for heteros it's about commitment and family. Therein lies the change that we don't want to see.

1) Not all hetro couples can or want or will produces children between them. So straight off the bat your wrong about for hetros its all about family.

2) Some gay couples would like to have children.

Still using children to justify no same sex marriage. How about you answer the above questions :)


"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2013 6:06:20 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/29/2013 5:00:05 AM, medic0506 wrote:

This argument perfectly illustrates the different ways that we look at marriage. For gays it's about gaining benefits and acceptance, for heteros it's about commitment and family. Therein lies the change that we don't want to see.

This is such a gross generalization that it's ridiculous. Do you really believe that every heterosexual couple gets married for "commitment and family"? Ask Kim Kardashian if that's why she had a week-long marriage.
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2013 6:14:00 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/29/2013 5:00:05 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 5/29/2013 4:09:37 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
Dear people who argue against same sex marriage using the "procreation" argument.

What is the procreation argument, well it comes out sounding something like two men and two women can't have children with each other, ergo same sex marriage should not be allowed.

Now to anyone who thinks this is a knock down argument against SSM I want you to ask your self the following questions......

1) Should the inability of a couple to produce babies with one another dis-qualify that couple from being being able to marry ?

How often do we know this before a couple has tried to concieve??

2) In the case where a couple can but refuses to produces children with one another does this refusal dis-qualify that couple from being able to marry ?

Is it possible that as they mature they might change their mind and want children??

99% of you will answer no to both.

As such could you please stop bringing up the in-ability of a same sex couple to produces babies with one another as some sort of knock down argument against same sex marriage.

This argument perfectly illustrates the different ways that we look at marriage. For gays it's about gaining benefits and acceptance, for heteros it's about commitment and family. Therein lies the change that we don't want to see.

Yeah, because Britney Spears and Jason Alexanders 55 hour marriage was all about family and commitment.


"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2013 6:16:48 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Which one of Newt Gingrich's marriages was about love and commitment? The one in which he abandoned his wife on her deathbed or the one in which he was having an affair while he was denouncing Bill Clinton for having an affair?
DoubtingDave
Posts: 380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2013 6:21:21 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/29/2013 6:16:48 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
Which one of Newt Gingrich's marriages was about love and commitment? The one in which he abandoned his wife on her deathbed or the one in which he was having an affair while he was denouncing Bill Clinton for having an affair?

+1
The Great Wall of Fail

"I have doubts that anti-semitism even exists" -GeoLaureate8

"Evolutionists think that people evolved from rocks" -Scotty

"And whats so bad about a Holy war? By Holy war, I mean a war which would aim to subdue others under Islam." -Ahmed.M

"The free market didn't create the massive wealth in the country, WW2 did." -malcomxy

"Independant federal regulators make our capitalist society possible." -Erik_Erikson
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2013 8:45:34 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/29/2013 5:36:01 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 5/29/2013 5:00:05 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 5/29/2013 4:09:37 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
Dear people who argue against same sex marriage using the "procreation" argument.

What is the procreation argument, well it comes out sounding something like two men and two women can't have children with each other, ergo same sex marriage should not be allowed.

Now to anyone who thinks this is a knock down argument against SSM I want you to ask your self the following questions......

1) Should the inability of a couple to produce babies with one another dis-qualify that couple from being being able to marry ?

How often do we know this before a couple has tried to concieve??

Relevance ?

Scenario 1) Couple has tried once a week
Scenario 2) Couple tries every now and then
Scenario 3) Couple rarely tries
Scenario 4) Couple has never tried

Is your answer different based on the different scenarios or are you trying to avoid answering the question ?

Show relevance or answer the question please.

It's relevant because most of the time people don't know that they're infertile until after they've tried and failed. Do you want to pay for everyone to be tested before they can get married??

2) In the case where a couple can but refuses to produces children with one another does this refusal dis-qualify that couple from being able to marry ?

Is it possible that as they mature they might change their mind and want children??

Putting aside the insinuation that choosing not to have kids is immature, Yes it possible that they might change their mind.

Now answer the question.

It isn't an insinuation about immaturity, but life goals and desires change as you get older. Should someone have to sign promising that they want to have kids, if at the time of their marriage they aren't planning that just yet??

99% of you will answer no to both.

As such could you please stop bringing up the in-ability of a same sex couple to produces babies with one another as some sort of knock down argument against same sex marriage.

This argument perfectly illustrates the different ways that we look at marriage. For gays it's about gaining benefits and acceptance, for heteros it's about commitment and family. Therein lies the change that we don't want to see.

1) Not all hetro couples can or want or will produces children between them. So straight off the bat your wrong about for hetros its all about family.

If it's not about family then stop using that as an excuse to push for gays to be able to marry.

2) Some gay couples would like to have children.

That makes about as much sense as going shopping for a motorcycle at the grocery store. And it speaks to where the priorities lie.

Still using children to justify no same sex marriage. How about you answer the above questions :)

I make no apologies for using family in the argument. It's your attempt to dissociate the two that gives fuel to our argument against it. You're trying to fundamentally change what marriage and family is and what it means. That's one of the main reasons that we oppose that change.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2013 8:49:07 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/29/2013 6:06:20 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 5/29/2013 5:00:05 AM, medic0506 wrote:

This argument perfectly illustrates the different ways that we look at marriage. For gays it's about gaining benefits and acceptance, for heteros it's about commitment and family. Therein lies the change that we don't want to see.

This is such a gross generalization that it's ridiculous. Do you really believe that every heterosexual couple gets married for "commitment and family"? Ask Kim Kardashian if that's why she had a week-long marriage.

The current view on the marriage institution is a result of decades of liberal attitudes about family. Don't try to use it against us when the fruits of your liberal labor come back to bite you.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2013 8:50:03 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/29/2013 6:14:00 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/29/2013 5:00:05 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 5/29/2013 4:09:37 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
Dear people who argue against same sex marriage using the "procreation" argument.

What is the procreation argument, well it comes out sounding something like two men and two women can't have children with each other, ergo same sex marriage should not be allowed.

Now to anyone who thinks this is a knock down argument against SSM I want you to ask your self the following questions......

1) Should the inability of a couple to produce babies with one another dis-qualify that couple from being being able to marry ?

How often do we know this before a couple has tried to concieve??

2) In the case where a couple can but refuses to produces children with one another does this refusal dis-qualify that couple from being able to marry ?

Is it possible that as they mature they might change their mind and want children??

99% of you will answer no to both.

As such could you please stop bringing up the in-ability of a same sex couple to produces babies with one another as some sort of knock down argument against same sex marriage.

This argument perfectly illustrates the different ways that we look at marriage. For gays it's about gaining benefits and acceptance, for heteros it's about commitment and family. Therein lies the change that we don't want to see.

Yeah, because Britney Spears and Jason Alexanders 55 hour marriage was all about family and commitment.

See my post to Royal about that.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2013 8:53:07 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/29/2013 6:16:48 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
Which one of Newt Gingrich's marriages was about love and commitment? The one in which he abandoned his wife on her deathbed or the one in which he was having an affair while he was denouncing Bill Clinton for having an affair?

See, your liberal views have even bled over into the minds of many conservatives. Once again, it's attitudes like yours that caused this kind of societal view, so don't try to use it against me when it rears its head.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2013 8:53:41 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/29/2013 5:00:05 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 5/29/2013 4:09:37 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
Dear people who argue against same sex marriage using the "procreation" argument.

What is the procreation argument, well it comes out sounding something like two men and two women can't have children with each other, ergo same sex marriage should not be allowed.

Now to anyone who thinks this is a knock down argument against SSM I want you to ask your self the following questions......

1) Should the inability of a couple to produce babies with one another dis-qualify that couple from being being able to marry ?

How often do we know this before a couple has tried to concieve??

First of all, this is irrelevant. Take it as a given that you know that the couple can't produce children. Should they be denied the right to marry?

Second, we know in plenty of cases. While there are plenty of cases of infertility that has yet to be discovered, there are also plenty of cases where it has already been established. Hysterectomies, vasectomies, tubes tied/cut, menopause, etc. Should these couples be denied the ability to get married?


2) In the case where a couple can but refuses to produces children with one another does this refusal dis-qualify that couple from being able to marry ?

Is it possible that as they mature they might change their mind and want children??

Certainly, and they can get married then. Now answer the question.


99% of you will answer no to both.

As such could you please stop bringing up the in-ability of a same sex couple to produces babies with one another as some sort of knock down argument against same sex marriage.

This argument perfectly illustrates the different ways that we look at marriage. For gays it's about gaining benefits and acceptance, for heteros it's about commitment and family. Therein lies the change that we don't want to see.

Good, then if you don't care about the benefits of marriage, then why not give them to someone else that does?
v3nesl
Posts: 4,494
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2013 10:06:15 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/29/2013 5:00:05 AM, medic0506 wrote:
...

This argument perfectly illustrates the different ways that we look at marriage. For gays it's about gaining benefits and acceptance, for heteros it's about commitment and family. Therein lies the change that we don't want to see.

And you know what - it occurs to me this is the change in government that we conservatives don't want to see, that's it in a nutshell - from government as the instrument of only what limited compulsion is necessary, to government that hands out benefits (and of course, you eventually find out, owns you)
This space for rent.
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2013 10:13:03 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/29/2013 8:50:03 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 5/29/2013 6:14:00 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/29/2013 5:00:05 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 5/29/2013 4:09:37 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
Dear people who argue against same sex marriage using the "procreation" argument.

What is the procreation argument, well it comes out sounding something like two men and two women can't have children with each other, ergo same sex marriage should not be allowed.

Now to anyone who thinks this is a knock down argument against SSM I want you to ask your self the following questions......

1) Should the inability of a couple to produce babies with one another dis-qualify that couple from being being able to marry ?

How often do we know this before a couple has tried to concieve??

2) In the case where a couple can but refuses to produces children with one another does this refusal dis-qualify that couple from being able to marry ?

Is it possible that as they mature they might change their mind and want children??

99% of you will answer no to both.

As such could you please stop bringing up the in-ability of a same sex couple to produces babies with one another as some sort of knock down argument against same sex marriage.

This argument perfectly illustrates the different ways that we look at marriage. For gays it's about gaining benefits and acceptance, for heteros it's about commitment and family. Therein lies the change that we don't want to see.

Yeah, because Britney Spears and Jason Alexanders 55 hour marriage was all about family and commitment.

See my post to Royal about that.

You can't have it both ways medic, either heteros all want marriage for family and commitment, or you're wrong. I don't are why you're wrong.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2013 10:14:53 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/29/2013 8:53:07 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 5/29/2013 6:16:48 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
Which one of Newt Gingrich's marriages was about love and commitment? The one in which he abandoned his wife on her deathbed or the one in which he was having an affair while he was denouncing Bill Clinton for having an affair?

See, your liberal views have even bled over into the minds of many conservatives. Once again, it's attitudes like yours that caused this kind of societal view, so don't try to use it against me when it rears its head.

Poisoning the well medic, that's a logical fallacy.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
leojm
Posts: 1,825
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2013 10:16:44 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I'm against same sex marriage. It's gross and just blah. How can you just do that, I mean I would describe in detail but there are kids on this site. But it's not normal at all. Sameness in everything. Blah oh just nasty. Nothing enjoyable at all, you got everything the other person has. I'm just going to stop here.
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2013 11:27:01 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
If you want to justify limiting marriage to heterosexual couples, you must do so by citing a property that all heterosexual couples have and that all homosexual couples don't have, and show how this property is linked to marriage. Ability or will to reproduce has been shown to not apply to all heterosexual couples, so this argument simply doesn't hold.

You then attempt to defend this by essentially saying that heterosexual couples usually can reproduce. I could extend that logic by saying that people usually want to marry someone that they are able to reproduce with, concluding that all types of marriage should be legal. You can generalize if you want to, but of using this argument, you are creating a niche for couples that can't or won't reproduce, and you are creating it for no particular reason.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2013 11:37:25 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I think we should create a new, better tradition for joining two people together, and just leave all this confusing religious stuff alone. I am for gay marriage, though. The sanctity of marriage is long gone, and now it just encourages discrimination. Also the OP is correct, the life-long commitment and breeding expectations can't be used as an argument, because they're gone. In the age of secular nations, marriage can not be enforced to such a high regard.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2013 11:46:06 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/29/2013 10:16:44 AM, leojm wrote:
I'm against same sex marriage. It's gross and just blah. How can you just do that, I mean I would describe in detail but there are kids on this site. But it's not normal at all. Sameness in everything. Blah oh just nasty. Nothing enjoyable at all, you got everything the other person has. I'm just going to stop here.

I really do not understand how people can eat cauliflower cheese. It disgusts me to the point of retching. We should probably ban that, too. You realise that 1) gay people seem to enjoy it and 2) straight people can - and do - perform the same acts, right?
Fruitytree
Posts: 2,176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2013 12:29:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/29/2013 12:05:20 PM, StevenDixon wrote:
Real reason they want to ban same sex marriage

God said homosexuality is wrong.

God is always right.
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2013 12:47:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Dear people who argue for same sex marriage using the "loving commitment" argument.

What is the "loving commitment" argument, well it comes out sounding something like any individuals who are lovingly committed to one another should be able to marry, ergo, among others, same sex couples should be able to get married.

Now to anyone who thinks this is a good argument for SSM I want you to ask your self the following questions......

1) Should the inability of a couple to be lovingly committed to another dis-qualify that couple from being being able to marry ?

2) In the case where a couple can but refuses to be lovingly committed to one another does this refusal dis-qualify that couple from being able to marry ?

99% of you will answer no to both.

As such could you please stop bringing up the ability of a same sex couple to be lovingly committed to one another as some sort of good argument for same sex marriage.
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2013 12:56:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/29/2013 10:16:44 AM, leojm wrote:
I'm against same sex marriage. It's gross and just blah. How can you just do that, I mean I would describe in detail but there are kids on this site. But it's not normal at all. Sameness in everything. Blah oh just nasty. Nothing enjoyable at all, you got everything the other person has. I'm just going to stop here.

You do know that gays being able to get married, does not mean that you have to get married to a woman, right?
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
leojm
Posts: 1,825
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2013 2:03:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/29/2013 11:27:01 AM, drhead wrote:
If you want to justify limiting marriage to heterosexual couples, you must do so by citing a property that all heterosexual couples have and that all homosexual couples don't have, and show how this property is linked to marriage. Ability or will to reproduce has been shown to not apply to all heterosexual couples, so this argument simply doesn't hold.

You then attempt to defend this by essentially saying that heterosexual couples usually can reproduce. I could extend that logic by saying that people usually want to marry someone that they are able to reproduce with, concluding that all types of marriage should be legal. You can generalize if you want to, but of using this argument, you are creating a niche for couples that can't or won't reproduce, and you are creating it for no particular reason.

My ex boyfriend became gay and he fell in love with another guy, hello... guy and guy same things. :/ Wow people are clueless and totally oblivious to things.
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2013 2:05:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/29/2013 12:29:59 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
At 5/29/2013 12:05:20 PM, StevenDixon wrote:
Real reason they want to ban same sex marriage

God said homosexuality is wrong.

God is always right.

Why?
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
leojm
Posts: 1,825
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2013 2:07:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/29/2013 12:56:55 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/29/2013 10:16:44 AM, leojm wrote:
I'm against same sex marriage. It's gross and just blah. How can you just do that, I mean I would describe in detail but there are kids on this site. But it's not normal at all. Sameness in everything. Blah oh just nasty. Nothing enjoyable at all, you got everything the other person has. I'm just going to stop here.

You do know that gays being able to get married, does not mean that you have to get married to a woman, right?

well gay means guy to guy or girl to girl. I can see girl marrieng girl, but guy to guy no... no... that's just wrong.