Chick Fil-A Day!

[Genivaria]

Already addressed. There is no way for a man and a women to be completely infertile, even if you have to implant the man's DNA into her egg through some other means.

So you support polygamy? That's a slippery slope.

I do. Same reason. If people who love each other wish to get married then who am I to say they can't?

[Frisivisia]

Women who are over 65 cannot have babies, thus lets ban their marriage.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pregnancy_over_age_50

Most of those women disagree. Namely Mrs. Steve Pace.

You didn't address him. That is women over 50. Most, if not all of them were pre-menopause.

[Daventry]

So why is infertile couples ok but Homosexual relations are not? Oh because you are a Christian Bigot. Just admit it and get over it.

DId you read anything that I just said? We ban things that are obviously unable to reproduce to make fertile offspring, like men and stereos, men and men, men and dogs, and men and horses. There is no way to be 100% infertile, even if there's one gamete still hanging around and the odds are ridiculously low that your seed will survive to an egg. Even if you had no lower body, you could still take your DNA, the mother's egg and make a baby. Can't do that with two males or two females.

I once dated a girl who had had a complete hysterectomy. What percent chance would you say I had of impregnating her?

[Frisivisia]

So you support polygamy? That's a slippery slope.

I do. Same reason. If people who love each other wish to get married then who am I to say they can't?

I agree, my statement was satirical.

[Beiluxia]

Women who are over 65 cannot have babies, thus lets ban their marriage.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pregnancy_over_age_50

Most of those women disagree. Namely Mrs. Steve Pace.

Mrs. Steve Pace =/= 99% of women who are infertile by their sixties. So apparently Mrs. Steve Pace's marriage is better than all the other elderly people in the world's because she can give birth? That's preposterous.

[Astrolinium]

Not yet, but soon.

Get me a neutral source.

No such thing.
But I can give you more sources.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/2058248/New-S ... production
http://www.chromosomechronicles.com/200 ... x-couples/

[The Mongol Ilkhanate]

Get me a neutral source.

Give me a source for a reason why gay marriage is wrong. Which does not contain the following words "Fundiementlist," "Baptist," "Bible," and "Christian,"

Go on then.

I want a neutral source for facts, you want a neutral source for opinions (which, you know, is impossible). Though

http://www.nationformarriage.org/site/c ... ut_NOM.htm

[Mussoliniopoli]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pregnancy_over_age_50

Most of those women disagree. Namely Mrs. Steve Pace.

You didn't address him. That is women over 50. Most, if not all of them were pre-menopause.

He is illiterate and living in a cave while typing on a toaster give the man a break. This is his ideal society:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIaORknS1Dk

[Genivaria]

I do. Same reason. If people who love each other wish to get married then who am I to say they can't?

I agree, my statement was satirical.

Ah.

[Frisivisia]

Give me a source for a reason why gay marriage is wrong. Which does not contain the following words "Fundiementlist," "Baptist," "Bible," and "Christian,"

Go on then.

I want a neutral source for facts, you want a neutral source for opinions (which, you know, is impossible). Though

http://www.nationformarriage.org/site/c ... ut_NOM.htm

That's an anti-Gay Marriage site. You can tell by the name.

[Beiluxia]

What about all those marriages that don't end up in having a baby? Marriage =/= having a baby, mind you. Should we annul all marriages where straight couples cannot have babies because of some defect?

Already addressed. There is no way for a man and a women to be completely infertile, even if you have to implant the man's DNA into her egg through some other means.

Irrelevant. You're saying that as long as a marriage has the possibility to create birth, then it is more of a marriage than those with less chance of creating life through inter-marital means. If that's the case, marriages which produce a bunch of offspring, only to end in divorce later, is better of a marriage than a life-long commitment between two people who decide not to have a child.

[The Mongol Ilkhanate]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pregnancy_over_age_50

Most of those women disagree. Namely Mrs. Steve Pace.

You didn't address him. That is women over 50. Most, if not all of them were pre-menopause.

Did you even READ it?

73 years October 1941 Pace Steve Pace, her husband Natural conception United States Mrs Steve Pace, of Rose Hill[disambiguation needed], Virginia, is reported have given birth to her 17th child, a boy, in October 1941, at the incredible age of 73. She was then already mother of 16 children, whose the last was born in 1918, twenty-three years earlier.

[Blakk Metal]

Get me a neutral source.

Give me a source for a reason why gay marriage is wrong. Which does not contain the following words: "Fundiementlist," "Baptist," "Bible," and "Christian,"

'faggot', 'sin', 'Sodom', 'god', 'trve', 'br00tal', 'nigga', 'nigger', 'brutal', 'sodomy'...

[Frisivisia]

You didn't address him. That is women over 50. Most, if not all of them were pre-menopause.

Did you even READ it?

73 years October 1941 Pace Steve Pace, her husband Natural conception United States Mrs Steve Pace, of Rose Hill[disambiguation needed], Virginia, is reported have given birth to her 17th child, a boy, in October 1941, at the incredible age of 73. She was then already mother of 16 children, whose the last was born in 1918, twenty-three years earlier.

Alright, a tiny percentage of women give birth extremely late in life. Thus gay marriage is wrong.

[The Mongol Ilkhanate]

Already addressed. There is no way for a man and a women to be completely infertile, even if you have to implant the man's DNA into her egg through some other means.

Irrelevant. You're saying that as long as a marriage has the possibility to create birth, then it is more of a marriage than those with less chance of creating life through inter-marital means. If that's the case, marriages which produce a bunch of offspring, only to end in divorce later, is better of a marriage than a life-long commitment between two people who decide not to have a child.

You're conflating the words "better" with "more of"

I could use that same argument for Bob and his filing cabinet, who will be married for all time, as opposed to quickie celebrity marriages.

[Beiluxia]

You didn't address him. That is women over 50. Most, if not all of them were pre-menopause.

Did you even READ it?

73 years October 1941 Pace Steve Pace, her husband Natural conception United States Mrs Steve Pace, of Rose Hill[disambiguation needed], Virginia, is reported have given birth to her 17th child, a boy, in October 1941, at the incredible age of 73. She was then already mother of 16 children, whose the last was born in 1918, twenty-three years earlier.

reapeat from earlier post:

Mrs. Steve Pace =/= 99% of women who are infertile by their sixties. So apparently Mrs. Steve Pace's marriage is better than all the other elderly people in the world's because she can give birth at a really old age? That's preposterous.

[Revolutopia]

You didn't address him. That is women over 50. Most, if not all of them were pre-menopause.

He is illiterate and living in a cave while typing on a toaster give the man a break. This is his ideal society:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIaORknS1Dk

People argue about the slippery slope of individuals marrying stereos are probably not "typing" on a toaster, so much as do something else.

[Frisivisia]

Irrelevant. You're saying that as long as a marriage has the possibility to create birth, then it is more of a marriage than those with less chance of creating life through inter-marital means. If that's the case, marriages which produce a bunch of offspring, only to end in divorce later, is better of a marriage than a life-long commitment between two people who decide not to have a child.

You're conflating the words "better" with "more of"

I could use that same argument for Bob and his filing cabinet, who will be married for all time, as opposed to quickie celebrity marriages.

If Bob and his filing cabinet are in love, who are we to deny them?

[The Mongol Ilkhanate]

Alright, a tiny percentage of women give birth extremely late in life. Thus gay marriage is wrong.

Also, you can't read, evidently, for you did not see that.

Point is, there is no way to prove, or even be, 100% infertile.

[Frisivisia]

Alright, a tiny percentage of women give birth extremely late in life. Thus gay marriage is wrong.

Also, you can't read, evidently, for you did not see that.

Point is, there is no way to prove, or even be, 100% infertile.

Dead is pretty good, as far as that goes.

[The Mongol Ilkhanate]

You're conflating the words "better" with "more of"

I could use that same argument for Bob and his filing cabinet, who will be married for all time, as opposed to quickie celebrity marriages.

If Bob and his filing cabinet are in love, who are we to deny them?

And there goes your credibility. Reductio ad absurdum, the mathematical proof, strikes again.

[The Mongol Ilkhanate]

Also, you can't read, evidently, for you did not see that.

Point is, there is no way to prove, or even be, 100% infertile.

Dead is pretty good, as far as that goes.

And notice how civil marriages are no longer in force when people die? You can't file for married status if your spouse is dead.

So, yeah, thanks for backing me up.

[The Mongol Ilkhanate]

Did you even READ it?

reapeat from earlier post:

Mrs. Steve Pace =/= 99% of women who are infertile by their sixties. So apparently Mrs. Steve Pace's marriage is better than all the other elderly people in the world's because she can give birth at a really old age? That's preposterous.

I've already shown the heterosexual marriages which are childless are just as much of marriages as those with child. It's a theoretical imperfection stemming from the fact that at any age and condition a man and a woman can create a child.

[Genivaria]

If Bob and his filing cabinet are in love, who are we to deny them?

And there goes your credibility. Reductio ad absurdum, the mathematical proof, strikes again.

Yes, your favorite argument. Hypocrite.

[Frisivisia]

If Bob and his filing cabinet are in love, who are we to deny them?

And there goes your credibility. Reductio ad absurdum, the mathematical proof, strikes again.

Bob loves his filing cabinet, and if he wants to marry it, so be it. It's his deal, aren't you conservatives about personal freedom?