Stephen Harper vows free vote on gay marriage

[TenPenny]

RE: Harper vows free vote on gay marriage

I see Hogwild has a new definition of sex:
"Counterpoint 9

Fine. Here you go: Let us say that Homosexuals, by definition, are people who have sex only with members of the same sex. Let us agree that "human reproduction requires genetic material from two different sexes".

Next, here's the newsflash for you: Human reproduction DOES NOT REQUIRE AN ACT OF SEX

Rebuttal 9

We agree on the first point. You contradicted your first point with the second.
Clarification:
Yes it does require an act of sex. Whether naturally or unnaturally, reproduction requires a transfer of genetic material from the sex organs of one sex to the sex organs of another. That is sex. "

I didn't know that ivf or artificial insemination were "sex".

And no, by my definition of sex, which is an act between two people, I did not contradict my first point with my second.

You are even more creative than Bill Clinton, with your definition of sex. Amazing. I wonder who's the genetic dead ender now?

 

[pastafarian]

Re: Harper vows free vote on gay marriage

You are even more creative than Bill Clinton, with your definition of sex. Amazing. I wonder who's the genetic dead ender now?

Ah yes: "I did not, for purposes of reproduction, transfer genetic material from my sex organs those of another with that woman."

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: Harper vows free vote

Conversely, wouldn't that mean that acts that do not result in offspring are not sex? Wait'll Mrs. Rev finds out she's still a virgin.

 

[jimmoyer]

RE: Harper vows free vote on gay marriage

Let the gays marry.
It won't hurt anybody.

 

[Reverend Blair]

Re: Harper vows free vote on gay marriage

Okay, I told Mrs. Rev she was still a virgin. She's not buying it.

 

[Ocean Breeze]

Re: Harper vows free vote on gay marriage

Okay, I told Mrs. Rev she was still a virgin. She's not buying it.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

ya mean she don't consider you an "authority" on these things..??? :wink:

She probably barely raised her eyebrows.. :wink:

 

[zenfisher]

Re: Harper vows free vote on gay marriage

Counterpoint 11

Beyond the fact of which sex is preferred. Homosexuals are capable of reproducing. If you are implying that because homosexuals cannot reproduce with each other,consider this. If homosexuals are the product of two hetrosexuals... by your logic...that would mean that hetrosexuals are "genetic deadenders". as well. Therefore, your suppostion is flawed, and I for one cannot agree that it is correct.

Rebuttal 11

Irrelevant. The fact that heterosexuals reproduce proves they are not genetic dead-enders.

By your logic...if they are producing a "genetic deadender" ( His opinion not mine) they are merely one step in that process. Also ...as mentioned...Homosexuals do, have and will continue to reproduce...therefore your position is seriously flawed. The fact that they may not prefer to comingle with the opposite sex is as you would put it....irrelevent. The point of creating a human has absolutely nothing to do with sexual preference.

 

[Hogwild]

Re: Harper vows free vote on gay marriage

The argument continues.

Counterpoint 12

In terms of a species, being homosexual and not being able to reproduce is a death sentence. A goal of any animal, even humans, is to reproduce and pass on its genetic material. Many species lives are culminated by successful reproduction.

Rebuttal 12

I agree. Stick around for the ride.

Counterpoint 13

because anything that affects "society'", affects the reproductive patterns of scoial creatures, therefore it affects which traits are likely to survive, QED.

Rebuttal 13

Thanks for following the structure.

The argument is not whether homosexuals affect the genetics of others. They may socially affect those around them. Just not physically genetically. I suggest that genetics has more to do with choices and reactions of a reproductive individual than the external environment.

Regardless, as we understand the physical nature of genetics as opposed to the unquantified non-physical aspect, homosexuals themselves are genetic dead-enders.

Counterpoint 14

I didn't know that ivf or artificial insemination were "sex".

And no, by my definition of sex, which is an act between two people, I did not contradict my first point with my second.

Rebuttal 14

First - Thanks for following the structure.

Perhaps I misunderstood, please clarify how your definition of sex is a counterpoint to point 1 "homosexuals are genetic dead-enders".

I do want to address your counterpoint.

Counterpoint 15

By your logic...if they are producing a "genetic deadender" ( His opinion not mine) they are merely one step in that process. Also ...as mentioned...Homosexuals do, have and will continue to reproduce...therefore your position is seriously flawed. The fact that they may not prefer to comingle with the opposite sex is as you would put it....irrelevent. The point of creating a human has absolutely nothing to do with sexual preference.

Rebuttal 15

Thanks for following the structure.

Heterosexuals may produce a child that refuses to reproduce. That child is the genetic dead-ender - not the parents.

The definition of a homosexual refers only to "same sex" (no mention of two different sexes anywhere). Therefore introducing genetic material from a different sex as required in reproduction is not homosexual behavior. Humans are not asexual.

A virtuous homosexual (not a hypocrite) would not have sex or use the genetic material of a different sex in an intimately sexual or clinically sexual way.

You will recall this is an argument about homosexuality not heterosexuality or polygamy.

Main Entry: 1ho·mo·sex·u·al
Pronunciation: "hO-m&-'sek-sh(&-)w&l, -'sek-sh&l
Function: adjective
1 : of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex
2 : of, relating to, or involving sexual intercourse between persons of the same sex

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: Harper vows free vote

What if they get themselves cloned? We currently have the technology to do so. Also, if two clones from the same genetic donor have sex with each other, is that incest or masturbation?

What if you have a herd of dairy cows and one of them...let's call her Queenie...gives nothing but male calves. Queenie's calves are then castrated and, a little later, made into hamburger. They never get to pass on their genetic material.

Does that make Queenie a genetic dead-ender? After all, her calves could have passed on their genetic material but artificial intervention not of their choosing took place.

 

[DasFX]

Re: Harper vows free vote on gay marriage

Homosexuals do, have and will continue to reproduce...therefore your position is seriously flawed. The fact that they may not prefer to comingle with the opposite sex is as you would put it....irrelevent. The point of creating a human has absolutely nothing to do with sexual preference.

What??? Sexual preference has nothing to do with reproduction?
Homosexuals do reproduce, but it isn't natural for them. Just like I, as a heterosexual male am able to mate with another male, but it is my natural instinctual desire.

Sexual preference has everything to do with reproduction. If a group's natural preference is to mate with an individual where there is no chance for creating an offspring, then it certainly has an effect of the long term survival of that group.

 

[DasFX]

Re: RE: Harper vows free vote

Conversely, wouldn't that mean that acts that do not result in offspring are not sex? Wait'll Mrs. Rev finds out she's still a virgin.

I cannot believe how people twist basic concepts of biology, genetics to prove their points.

The objective of sex for most animals is to reproduce. Some animals like humans also have sex for pleassure, but it is still the only natural vehicle of reproduction.

Sex is an act, regardless of the end result.

 

[DasFX]

RE: Harper vows free vote on gay marriage

People are getting way off topic here.

Homosexuals should be allowed to marry and have the same rights as heterosexual couples. This is the issue.

As for genetics, homosexuality doesn't not promote the continuation of life; as an individual's natural instinctual choice of mate will not lead to reproduction. This in essence will be a dead end for that individuals genetic material.
The most plausible reason for the continuation of homosexuality through the years are either

a: Homosexuality is a genetic condition passed down through the generations. Up until recently, most homosexuals had to hid their true desires and often would become part of an unatural heterosexual relationship where children were often produced.

or

b: there is no gene for homosexuality that can be passed down, rather homosexuality stems from a mutation that occurs in one of the partner's sex gametes or in the zygote when fertilization occurs.

Personally I believe explanation b.

 

[Summer]

RE: Harper vows free vote

Actually, your "a" and "b" are not mutually exclusive, Das. Though personally, I believe "a" and not "b".

 

[Summer]

Re: Harper vows free vote on gay marriage

Now to address our resident pork chop:

Structure, my arse, Porky. What you've got is a list, and at this point I can't even tell half the time which parts of a post are your own and which are you quoting someone else. Try learning to format, or use the quote feature that this board so thoughtfully provides. Then at least what you post will be easier to read, even if the content is still semantically equivalent to something I stepped in while salting my sidewalk the other day.

Heres' another newsflash for you: there is ZERO chance that ALL members of the human species will become homosexual, so whether homosexuals reproduce or not has no bearing on the survival of the human species. Therefore, their homosexuality is a non-issue.

Also, even if it were true that homosexuals never reproduce (never mind that they do), that would still be no grounds for denying them the same rights as heterosexuals, including marriage, because marriage and rights have NOTHING to do with whether or not one reproduces, at least in our society. If you were geniuinely arguing that marriage is only about reproduction, you would then have to include provisions to prohibit marriage until AFTER a couple has already reproduced together at least once and DNA testing has been done to prove that the resulting child(ren) were in fact fathered by the prospective husband. At this point the division between those who have full rights and those who do not would shift from being predicated upon sexuality to being predicated upon one's status (or lack thereof) as a parent.

I am curious, Porky, to know what you think of me, a heterosexual woman who has no children and plans not to have any, engaged to a man who has no children and plans not to have any? You have already labeled me a "genetic dead-ender" in your 15th rebuttal, as I am "a child that refuses to reproduce", and my fiance is the same. Am I to conclude then that in your eyes, *we* should NOT have the right to marry each other? Neither of us is going to pass our genes on to the next generation, after all. I seriously want an answer on this, and if I don't get one, then I'll have to assume that your entire stance is nothing more than a jumbo load of bravo sierra. (Not that this will be news to me, you understand.)

 

[Cosmo]

RE: Harper vows free vote

Most excellent reply, Summer. High five to a fellow genetic dead ender!

Pig boy, while being obtuse and offensive, has served us well here. Even the worst example can be a valuable teacher and he has generated some good conversation ... without contributing to it, mind you.

I am done discussing it. Hogwild ... you are nuts. To argue with someone who needs nothing more than a strong shot of Haldol can be entertaining for a short while, but in the long run there is no percentage in debating someone without reason. It gets boring. You are getting boring.

Ok, I'm bad. I'm going to hell. I'm a genetic dead ender. You win. Howzat? Now go away.

 

[Hogwild]

Re: Harper vows free vote on gay marriage

Maintaining a structured approach in argument is the only way to weed out those that have no intention to argue with sincerity.

I have no desire to bicker with you about your personal choices. At best that would only yield an insincere agreement to disagree. At worst it would result in agreeing to an untruth.

If you intend to argue, then do so. I have made a point that will stand as true until a relevant counterpoint cant be rebutted with accuracy and sincerity.

I agree to accept the result as truth, do you? This is the nature of argument.

Why should I satisfy your curiosity during an argument that you refuse to participate in?

I'd love to tell you what I think of your situation. Lets get past this first point and I will.

 

[Summer]

RE: Harper vows free vote

Porky, I addressed your points already. Sorry you missed it. Now kindly address mine, or else admit that you're full of shyte.

Cosmo, I seriously am beginning to suspect that Porky is his own dead-end.... can't get it up and came here for some rather bizarrely twisted mental masturbation to make up for the lack.

I could probably open book on that.

 

[Said1]

Re: Harper vows free vote on gay marriage

Maintaining a structured approach in argument is the only way to weed out those that have no intention to argue with sincerity.

I have no desire to bicker with you about your personal choices. At best that would only yield an insincere agreement to disagree. At worst it would result in agreeing to an untruth.

If you intend to argue, then do so. I have made a point that will stand as true until a relevant counterpoint cant be rebutted with accuracy and sincerity.

I agree to accept the result as truth, do you? This is the nature of argument.

Why should I satisfy your curiosity during an argument that you refuse to participate in?

I'd love to tell you what I think of your situation. Lets get past this first point and I will.

Did you post any links or refer to any studies that might explain your point in greater detail that I might have missed? When construction a persusive arguement, that usually is a no brainer. If I was grading your posts based on ability to prove your point with valid, widely accepted facts, I'd give you an F. Sorry, I have to agree with Summer's sumation of what you've posted thus far.

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: Harper vows free vote

I was talking about cows before. Actually I was talking about a cow named Queenie.

Now most dairy cows are bred through artificial insemination. It's a good way to control the genetic traits of your herd and gives the average farmer access to genetic material that would otherwise not be available to them.

Most cows, as a result, are technically asexual. They never have sex. They are never given the opportunity to have sex.

Anyway, pigboy, if homosexuals who use artificial insemination are genetic dead-enders, wouldn't that make practically every dairy cow in Canada a genetic dead-ender as well? Or are cows just being hypocritical? Can cows be hypocritical? What should we do about all those hypocritical cows? Would the Hypocritical Cows be a good name for a cowpunk band?

So many questions....

 

[Cosmo]

Re: RE: Harper vows free vote

Porky, I addressed your points already. Sorry you missed it. Now kindly address mine, or else admit that you're full of shyte.

Cosmo, I seriously am beginning to suspect that Porky is his own dead-end.... can't get it up and came here for some rather bizarrely twisted mental masturbation to make up for the lack.

I could probably open book on that.

:lol: I'll put my money on "yes", Summer