In response to:

Super Bowl or Gay Equality Bowl

marshallbrinson Wrote: Feb 01, 2013 10:40 AM
When SAME Sex Couples can actually have children as a couple...then I will "get used to it"!!!! And YEP...I am against it...being called Marriage anyway!!!!
Roy323 Wrote: Feb 02, 2013 12:28 AM
tin-did you yell 'GOLLEEE!! like I did? Anyway, I thought gomer was funny, but UGLY!
Ms Kelly Wrote: Feb 01, 2013 4:28 PM
Yes and we were all going to be able to clone our children too, until they discovered that in cloning, we were creating something that was a freak and unable to live for more than a few months.
Beethovens10th Wrote: Feb 01, 2013 3:31 PM
Again, in vitro fertilization almost always entails the destruction of conceived humans.

Destruction of human life without valid reason (capital crime/war) is murder.
HeraldOfGalactus Wrote: Feb 01, 2013 1:39 PM
In vitro fertilization and artificial wombs are extremely different compared to what the Nazi's did. Lumping all advancement with Nazis is completely irrational. You're avoiding my question now. Just screaming "Nazi" doesn't make your argument valid. Do you believe that humans should not use science and knowledge to overcome natural limitations? By your logic, would using any drug that inteferes with natural processes (which includes drugs that treat disease) be as wrong as in vitro fertilization?
Tinsldr2 Wrote: Feb 01, 2013 1:26 PM

anonymous981 Wrote: 2 hours ago (10:40 AM)
When SAME Sex Couples can actually have children as a couple...then I will "get used to it"!!!!

/////

Recently an 80 year old man married his male partner of 35 years.

Now if he had married his female Partner at age 80 could he realistically have had children? Especially without drugs? What are the odds?

What if a male is fixed so he cant have children? Can he not marry a female because he cant have children? What about a wounded war vet that wants to marry a female but cant have kids.

Nowhere on any civil marriage form does it ask about ability to have children.
Beethovens10th Wrote: Feb 01, 2013 1:15 PM
Do you believe that humans should use technology and knowledge to attain any end? The Nazis most certainly did. Think of the scientific "progress" they made by experimenting on live humans.
HeraldOfGalactus Wrote: Feb 01, 2013 1:07 PM
Thank you for clearing that up. So you don't believe that humans should use their technology and knowledge to overcome natural limitations? By that logic, every drug would be wrong too because it changes a natural process. And I don't think you'll find any woman who has had a child through in-vitro that will agree with your condemnation.
Beethovens10th Wrote: Feb 01, 2013 12:56 PM
Yes, I condemn both practices.

If a couple can't have children naturally, then they are not meant to. It is supremely selfish to force a child into existence for personal desire. Adoption is a compassionate alternative.

Besides, in-vitro fertilization often entails the creation of numerous fertilized human eggs (human beings) that are then destroyed because they are not needed.
HeraldOfGalactus Wrote: Feb 01, 2013 12:42 PM
By that logic, do you give equal condemnation to those who utilize in-vitro fertilization or heterosexual couples who utilize surrogate mothers? If not, then you're just cherry picking.
Jay Wye Wrote: Feb 01, 2013 12:38 PM
homosexuality is an unhealthy,destructive behavior(medically PROVEN),a mental illness(readily apparent),and NOT good for society,any society(recognized over millennia).
it is not to be accommodated,enabled,or encouraged.
Anominus Wrote: Feb 01, 2013 12:23 PM
HOG has a tendency to reject any reality with which he disagrees - like DNA being able to prove that an organism is or is not of the human species.
Beethovens10th Wrote: Feb 01, 2013 12:12 PM
You really don't know what "natural" means, do you, Herald?
NewJAl Wrote: Feb 01, 2013 11:48 AM
I think that people are snickering and making jokes is the real bother to gays.
Keep your utopian dreams.






NewJAl Wrote: Feb 01, 2013 11:27 AM
Pie in the sky, by and by, seems to apply to your dreams.
HeraldOfGalactus Wrote: Feb 01, 2013 11:21 AM
That may be possible one day. Look up "artificial wombs" on Google. Within the next couple decades, it may be possible for gay couples to create children without the aid of a doner. It may even be possible one day in the distant future to alter human biology to allow men and women to bear children. Would you be in favor of homosexuality then?
NewJAl Wrote: Feb 01, 2013 11:01 AM
Marriage has been redefined.
Like redefining male and female, or insisting hands be really called feet.

Is it too much to ask that the focus of this Sunday be on football and not on “gay rights”? Will I be branded as a homophobic bigot for daring to make such a request? (I can answer that already: Yes!)

Last week, Fox News ran the headline, “Baltimore Raven linebacker [Brendon Ayanbadejo] uses Super Bowl spotlight to promote gay marriage,” reporting that, “Hours after Ayanbadejo’s team beat the New England Patriots on Sunday, paving their way to football’s biggest game, the three-time Pro Bowl special teams player wrote an email to gay marriage proponents asking how he could use...