Illogical position of opposing gay marriage

[3.14]

Originally Posted by tumbleweed41

Ohhh...

My wife and I can no longer reproduce due to a surgery she had seven years ago.
Is our sex life now "unnatural'?
Are the sex lives of all non-reproductive heterosexuals "unnatural"?

BTW, a Lesbian couple I know have two children, so that means they are natural. Right?

i'm sorry to here that,
keyword here is " no longer"
hetrosexuals could still reproduce even if they choose not to
if there were only 2 men left on the earth would they be able to reproduce?
if there were only 2 woman on left on earth would they be able to reproduce?

ps
let me geuss they adopted?, because if they were inseminated by a men its still the child of a men and a woman, its just raised by 2 womans

[Autodidact]

Sorry, I forgot that I got bored going round and round the same discussion and forgot that I owe Oberon some statistics on approval of interracial marriage. Here are some links:
Most Americans Approve of Interracial Marriages
Pensito Review » Gay Marriage Has Twice the Support Today That Interracial Marriage Had When It Was Legalized in the 1960s
U.S. public opinion polls on same-sex marriage
Marriage Equality USA
Love's revolution: interracial marriage - Google Books

In brief, in 1968, the percentage approving of interracial marriage was about 20%. Today, it's still only about 77%. We didn't hit a majority approval rate until 1991! "As meager as support for gay marriage is now — 49 percent in WashPost, 44 percent in CNN, 42 percent in the Times/CBS and 38 percent in Qunnipiac — it is still about double the 20-percent approval for interracial marriage in the country a few months after mixed marriages became legal." (Pensito, above.)

Interesting sidelight: Interracial marriage is legal in America today only because of those same "activist judges" the conservatives love to decry.

[Autodidact]

Originally Posted by 3.14

i'm sorry to here that,
keyword here is " no longer"
hetrosexuals could still reproduce even if they choose not to
if there were only 2 men left on the earth would they be able to reproduce?
if there were only 2 woman on left on earth would they be able to reproduce?

ps
let me geuss they adopted?, because if they were inseminated by a men its still the child of a men and a woman, its just raised by 2 womans

You're blathering. So again, you're using "natural" to mean partnerships that result in reproduction? (What a weird use of the word natural. When you use a word, does it mean exactly what you want it to mean?) So you would exclude any pairing of infertile people--those should be illegal, because they're unnatural?

Hmmm, let me review my basic biology: How many sexes does it take to reproduce...square root...carry the 7...cosine...divided by pi...no, if there was only one sex on earth, the human race would die out. Did you have a point of some kind?

Lesbians adopt children that careless heterosexuals are unable to care for, we have children by insemination, and many used to be heterosexual. I don't know the percentages.

[Oberon]

I said: if the fact that every definition disagrees with you doesn't sway you, nothing will.

To which you responded:

Originally Posted by mball1297

Actually, that would sway me

Only you think your definition is not so different from every dictionary in the english language. So I quoted your definition:

Originally Posted by mball1297

Hypocrite as used in the English language applies when someone says that they are entitled to something while someone else is not when there is no relevant difference between them.

vs. the dictionaries:

"a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, esp. a person whose actions belie stated beliefs."

The dictionary's definition would not exclude a racist, because if a racist acts, thinks, and talks like a racist he does not "pretend to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess."

Now you say:

Originally Posted by mball1297

Yes, he is. He believes he possesses some quality that makes him better than others, when he doesn't actually possess that quality.

So you've said that if there is no dictionary which supports your usage, you would be swayed. What dictionary supports this usage? What dictionary says "a hypocrite is someone who possesses some quality that makes him better than others, when he doesn't actually possess that quality?"

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Autodidact

Sorry, I forgot that I got bored going round and round the same discussion and forgot that I owe Oberon some statistics on approval of interracial marriage. Here are some links:
Most Americans Approve of Interracial Marriages
Pensito Review » Gay Marriage Has Twice the Support Today That Interracial Marriage Had When It Was Legalized in the 1960s
U.S. public opinion polls on same-sex marriage
Marriage Equality USA
Love's revolution: interracial marriage - Google Books

In brief, in 1968, the percentage approving of interracial marriage was about 20%. Today, it's still only about 77%. We didn't hit a majority approval rate until 1991! "As meager as support for gay marriage is now — 49 percent in WashPost, 44 percent in CNN, 42 percent in the Times/CBS and 38 percent in Qunnipiac — it is still about double the 20-percent approval for interracial marriage in the country a few months after mixed marriages became legal." (Pensito, above.)

Interesting sidelight: Interracial marriage is legal in America today only because of those same "activist judges" the conservatives love to decry.

Thanks. I do appreciate that, as at least some of your sources I consider authoritative.

Of course, there is still all the other problems we have (see my last responses to you). But that does give me some more hope.

[Autodidact]

There's great reason for hope. The struggle for equal rights for gay Americans is moving at lightning speed compared to prior movements. I think at least one reason for that is that everyone knows a gay person. Once gay people started to come out in large numbers, people realized that they had people in their families, friendship circles, churches, jobs who were in this minority group.

I also think the previous struggles of women and African-Americans helped build a culture that values equality and fairness.

[tumbleweed41]

Originally Posted by 3.14

i'm sorry to here that,

I'm not, sex without the possibility of reproduction is a relief.

Originally Posted by 3.14

keyword here is " no longer"

No, if we had never had children due to this surgery being before we met, it would not have made our sex life any more natural or unnatural.

Originally Posted by 3.14

hetrosexuals could still reproduce even if they choose not to

Wrong, not all heterosexuals are able to reproduce. Are those who can't unnatural?

Originally Posted by 3.14

if there were only 2 men left on the earth would they be able to reproduce?
if there were only 2 woman on left on earth would they be able to reproduce?

If there were only one heterosexual couple left on the earth, but he was sterile, would they be able to reproduce?
If there was only one heterosexual couple left on earth, but their genetic combination produced children unable to live without modern medicine, would the species die out?
If there was only one heterosexual couple left on earth, but she and the child died during a traumatic childbirth, would the species die out?
Your analogy fails on so many levels.

Originally Posted by 3.14

ps
let me geuss they adopted?, because if they were inseminated by a men its still the child of a men and a woman, its just raised by 2 womans

Not adopted, inseminated. I was the donor.
But, wow!!! Good guess on there having to be a man and a woman in the reproductive process. (Duh)
The point is that reproduction can occur without sex.
The ability to reproduce while enjoying sexual activity has nothing to do with natural or unnatural.
Sex is not just for reproduction. What a boring life that would be for all of us.
And as shown, reproduction can occur without sex. Will wonders never cease!!
Your analogies to sex=reproduction are so out of date that they border on the ridiculous.

[3.14]

Originally Posted by tumbleweed41

I'm not, sex without the possibility of reproduction is a relief.

so she did it on purpose?

by your definition

you found out there are exeptions

point is that without either gender no reproduction can take place (exept cloning but were not at that point yet)

[tumbleweed41]

Originally Posted by 3.14

point is that without either gender no reproduction can take place (exept cloning but were not at that point yet)

Yes, thank goodness nature supplies us with both sexes to be able to reproduce.
And thank goodness we have the ability to decide how and when to reproduce.
And isn't it great that sex feels good even when no reproduction is desired.
Thus freeing us from the constraints of "sex for reproduction only" and allowing each person to live life as they are naturally born to be.

[Autodidact]

Originally Posted by 3.14

so she did it on purpose?

by your definition

you found out there are exeptions

point is that without either gender no reproduction can take place (exept cloning but were not at that point yet)

That's your point? Well, really, I've known that for a long time. What does it have to do with today's subject?