yguy

Is it even remotely possible for you guys to find fault with what I actually SAY? The question I responded to was why heterosexual activity should be given any special legal consideration, not whether anything else should be made illegal.

Dr Rick

Neither is ice cream, as cheetah pointed-out.

Besides, that's a strawman; the thread is about same sex marraiges, not the legality or illegality of sexual practices.

"Is it even remotely possible for you, yguy, to find fault with what we actually SAY? The question we responded to was why same sex marriages should not be legal, not whether anything else should be made illegal."

yguy

I wasn't asked about same sex marriage, I was asked why heterosexuality should be given special consideration. If the thought experiment doesn't demonstrate that for you, I'm just dying to hear why.

Dr Rick

The question was, and I quote:

"Maybe the question should be why a heterosexual couple should be entitled to special recognition?"

Nothing about sexual practices or preferences is implied by the question.

Your thought experiment fails because it's a strawman, so stop dying.

Man, I just love saving lives...

yguy

Bree:
You SAY you don't care about anything BUT the children, but yet you protest against the rights of homosexuals to be left alone to do what they please. Which is it?

yguy:
They're already free to do as they please. They're just not entitled to any special recognition for those activities in law.

Amen-moses:
Maybe the question should be why a heterosexual couple should be entitled to special recognition?

Please, Doc - the context of the conversation clearly includes sexual activities. The right of heterosexuals to have sex is obviously indispensable to the survival of civilization. The corresponding right of homosexuals to do so is not. I know the idea doesn't lend itself to the general proclivity of academics to needlessly complicate things, but hey - life's tough, ain't it?

winstonjen

Perhaps now, but soon we'll be able to grow clones that don't have defects like Dolly did, so traditional reproductive techniques will be outdated. What will your views be when this happens?

Dr Rick

The context is marriage, not sex. In the US, homosexual sex is legal in many states, but same-sex marriage is not.

Same sex marriages don't ahve anything to do with " The right of heterosexuals to have sex;" it wouldn't in any way impinge on any heterosexual to have sex or marry if same same-sex marriage was legalized.

I know the idea doesn't lend itself to the general proclivity of prejudice to needlessly simplify things, but hey - life's tough, ain't it?

Amen-Moses

False analogy, we're not talking about sex were talking about marriage, abolishing marriage would have no effect on the birth rate whatsoever.

Amen-Moses

openeyes

Why are you so certain that children are harmed by being raised by a homosexual couple? Although this page (scroll down to the 3rd topic) doesn't have the actual studies to review, it does state that:

"After reviewing two decades of research, the American Academy of Pediatrics announced its support for the right of gays and lesbians to adopt their partners’ children. The group cited evidence that children of homosexual parents are just as well adjusted as children of heterosexual parents and said its decision protects children."

The biggest problem these kids seem to have, IMO, is the disdainful view held by others of his/her parents simply because they're homosexual.

cheetah

Ok, let's try this again. If only things that contribute to the greater good of society should be given "special consideration' then why should we give ice cream eating special consideration? In fact, ice cream makes people fat and as we know from political discussion forum, America does have an obesity problem. In fact, if you had a society of only ice cream eaters, the country would degenerate into fat slobs, which is why we should NOT give ice cream eating special consideration.

yguy, what is the difference between special consideration and making something legal? it seems to me you keep saying heterosexuals need special considerationa nd homosexuals shouldn't have it, which in practice appears to translate to heterosexual marriage should be legal, but homosexual marriage shouldn't (that IS what you have been fighting against this whole time), so I can't see the hairs you are splitting here.