Profound insights from MAD on Gay Marriage

[_bcspace]

Does being quoted by such make him wrong, any less of a scientist or a doctor?

He is a freaking proctologist! He works with people's assholes, pardon me! How does it make him an expert in lesbianism, STDs, and cervical cancer, I ask you once again? Does having an M.D. automatically make a person omniscient or something?

Feel free to explain how your reference to an activist helps your claims.

[_Runtu]

You've got to be joking. Do you even read your own references? The keyword is "may". Next!

I dunno. I'd trust that "may" over a non-peer-reviewed article about one doctor's anecdotal experience written for a fundamentalist tome.

[_KimberlyAnn]

How did I change your meaning?

I said....

The possibility of raising children is the only compelling reason to marry.

You said...

I understand that your statement suggests that the only compelling reason that heterosexual couples marry is to raise children.

If you can't see the difference, you're hopeless.

So, you're nitpicking over the word "possibility"?

If the possibility of raising children is the only compelling reason to marry, why should anyone marry who has no possibility of raising children? There are heterosexual women who marry past the age of child-bearing. What is their compelling reason to marry? Do you feel people who do not want children or who cannot have children have no compelling reason to marry?

Your argument is is what's hopeless.

KA

[_bcspace]

I'll ignore the insult, which unfortunately is becoming de rigeur with you, for some reason.

I only give back what I have received. Either you insult our intelligence with blatant misreadings of references or you are simply uneducated.

I dunno. I'd trust that "may" over a non-peer-reviewed article about one doctor's anecdotal experience written for a fundamentalist tome.

I trust established science over a "may" any day.

I've only scratched the surface reference wise. All you've done is selected a couple you think are bogus just because they appear in publications you disagree with which does nothing to invalidate them and you've ignored the rest.

[Guest]

How did I change your meaning?

I said....

The possibility of raising children is the only compelling reason to marry.

You said...

I understand that your statement suggests that the only compelling reason that heterosexual couples marry is to raise children.

If you can't see the difference, you're hopeless.

So, you're nitpicking over the word "possibility"?

If the possibility of raising children is the only compelling reason to marry, why should anyone marry who has no possibility of raising children? There are heterosexual women who marry past the age of child-bearing. What is their compelling reason to marry? Do you feel people who do not want children or who cannot have children have no compelling reason to marry?

Your argument is is what's hopeless.

KA

Hi KA, I believe I handled the "possiblity" in my statements to bcspace by suggesting a few different scenarios of those that have no possibility of raising children.

I also asked the above questions (not as eloquently as you) to bcspace a few times. Apparently he doesn't wish to answer said question.

I hope bcspace starts attacking the elderly that marry on a routine basis.

There should be legislation that deals with this travesty no doubt!

[_Who Knows]

Lets back up here. You said:

The possibility of raising children is the only compelling reason to marry.

Ok. Who says? Is this your opinion? Are you using the definition of marriage? Where is this coming from?

Tell me - what makes 'the possibility of raising children' the only compelling reason to marry?

[_Zoidberg]

I see you have no science to contradict the references I gave. Your traffic comment shows that you are the one who is spinning (because you have no references).

OMG! bcspace is the only one who has science. The rest of us are neanderthals who have no science. Let's crawl back into our caves now.

Or back under the rock or back into the closet, yes.

Do you realize that it's not even proper English to say "you have no science", you scientific person, you? English is not my first language, and even I know that.

Here, I'll help:

Anthony F. Bogaert
From the Cover: Biological versus nonbiological older brothers and men’s sexual orientation
PNAS 2006 103: 10771-10774

You've got to be joking. Do you even read your own references? The keyword is "may". Next!

I don't know what kind of science you have, but in my science, only pseudoscientists speak in absolute terms.

[_bcspace]

So, you're nitpicking over the word "possibility"?

Such completely changes the meaning of what I said. They recognize that and want to change the argument around so they can get a foothold. That's hardly nitpicking.

If the possibility of raising children is the only compelling reason to marry, why should anyone marry who has no possibility of raising children?

Indeed. They may have reasons, but no compelling ones. One can find just as much sex, companionship, security, etc. outside marriage. The only thing unique is raising children.

There are heterosexual women who marry past the age of child-bearing. What is their compelling reason to marry?

If that is the only detail, none whatsoever. However, if they have children or grandchildren, providing the male/female role model example to those children is a compelling reason.

Do you feel people who do not want children or who cannot have children have no compelling reason to marry?

As long as the possibility exists, why second guess them?

Your argument is is what's hopeless.

I find it confounds your side completely.

[_Runtu]

I only give back what I have received. Either you insult our intelligence with blatant misreadings of references or you are simply uneducated.

Was it or was it not an article about one man's experience in a non-peer-reviewed fundamentalist tome? Do you consider that scientific? Was there anything in that article that suggested that the author's findings were unique to homosexuals and applicable across a larger cross-section than one clinic?

I've only scratched the surface reference wise. All you've done is selected a couple you think are bogus just because they appear in publications you disagree with which does nothing to invalidate them and you've ignored the rest.

Actually, I was responding only to your use of a rather poor source. I'm really not interested in this subject, other than to ask what you believe is the compelling reason not to allow homosexuals to marry. If science backs you up, then go ahead and use science. But don't expect anyone to take you seriously when you cite decidedly unscientific stuff like this. If you've only scratched the surface, why did you choose such a poor source?

And go ahead and sneer. I'm not going to reciprocate.

[_KimberlyAnn]

Hi KA, I believe I handled the "possiblity" in my statements to bcspace by suggesting a few different scenarios of those that have no possibility of raising children.

I also asked the above questions (not as eloquently as you) to bcspace a few times. Apparently he doesn't wish to answer said question.

I hope bcspace starts attacking the elderly that marry on a routine basis.

There should be legislation that deals with this travesty no doubt!

I haven't read the entire thread, sorry! I'm sure you did give him many good scenarios.

BC likes to quibble over nonsense because his arguments have no real substance.

KA