Defending the Truth

You did not use the word, less. But this says it pretty clearly:

You did not use the word, less. But this says it pretty clearly:

Frackin' WOW. WTF happened here. OD you NEED to PM me and explain yo'sef.

Why does that mean your relationship "is somehow less than a heterosexual relationship"?

Why can't your relationship just be different than a heterosexual relationship? Or do you find that offensive too?

Why should every relationship between two people have to be considered as identical?

It seems that the homosexual community's first response is always to act indignant and offended rather than simply to put their case.

When you have no case, all you have is "feelings". That's why every article that you read about some "inequality" under the current laws is some sob story about a family that can't be together, of some other BS designed to make you feel sorry for them.

I'm sure that's part of my other "marketing" thread somewhere.

CF - can you explain to me why there are three people on this thread who are high-fiving each other and echoing each others strawmen arguments?

Who has ever said that a gay relationship is exactly the same as straight one? Nobody I've read (except from the three).

Now, I have read EQUAL - and deserving of EQUAL protections under the law. But I keep reading THE SAME THE SAME THE SAME from those same three over and over as if they're some kind of demented Rainman echoes.

CF, perhaps YOU can explain it to me.

Equality and "the same" are not "the same."

Women are not men - but they are equal; black men are not white men - but they are equal; a mixed religion marriage or mixed race marriage is not the same as a one-religion or one-race marriage - but they are equal.

What is all this B.S> about "the same" and "they're different"???? Hell NOTHING is the same and EVERYBODY is different.


Except perhaps the three echoing monkeys on this thread.

I'm sure OD is proud to know that she's throwing her hat in the ring with such a compassionate (not to mention civil and respectful) creature. She is so good at seeing the sensitive side of issues.

But a homosexual union is sterile. Period. Always. No avoiding it. Even the potential of procreation elevates the heterosexual union as far as human life is concerned. Women on average are not equal in muscular strength to men, but men can't bear children. Race is a bit harder to meansure, but there seem to be some differences between the races. But as far as a mixed marriage, I really can't see any quantifiable racial or religious difference that could be discerned. Do you?


We aren't talking about individuals. We are talking about the orientations. Britney Spears is not a representative of all women, you are not a representative of all gay men, and I and not representative of all black men. Everybody IS different. But ALL homosexual unions will never result in procreation, and barring a medical issue ALL heterosexual ones have the potential to bear children. And THAT is an important "difference" that to most intelligent people elevates heterosexuality above all others.

Your endless rant of procreation is yet another reason there is no reason to discuss anything with you.

YOu've been told multiple times that marriage is not required for procreation, nor is procreation a requirement of marriage. The government doesn't even ask if a couple is willing/intending/capable of procreating before issuing a marriage license. There is nothing in any wedding vows that involves procreation. Obviously, it has nothing to do with marriage requirements. Does procreation often happen in marriage? Absolutely. Does procreation often happen without marriage? Absolutely. Does marriage happen without procreation? Absolutely.

It has nothing to do with the marriage discussion.