Social ***mozilla Firefox ceo forced to resign for personal views****

[TheBox]

A hetero union and a homo union are different physiologically, conceptually, and tangibly therefore provides a very common sense purpose to give them different terms....they are different things.

The only difference is the form of sex they have, which is completely irrelevant to the marriage contract.

 

[m52nickerson]

The only difference is the form of sex they have, which is completely irrelevant to the marriage contract.

This!

 

[m52nickerson]

You both want to play "how many licks does it take to get to the center" on this issue in order to arrive at the conclusion your ideology demands.

There are as many differences and distinctions between a male/male or female/female relationship and a male/female one as there are between the individual genders themselves. I can begin reciting the list... and you will say that I have either failed to list enough distinctions or that the distinctions I have listed are somehow not sufficiently profound (according to your subjective reasoning) to warrant calling gay unions something other than marriage.

Will not waste my time. Will not play the game.

That is because any differences you can list are not going to effect what legal marrages are. How married people have sex does not effect their legal standing as married does it?

 

[TheComebackKid]

The only difference is the form of sex they have, which is completely irrelevant to the marriage contract.

Nope, they are physiologically, conceptually, and tangibly different. You can choose to ignore those differences if you want but they are there and not every is obligated to ignore them.

 

[TheBox]

Nope, they are physiologically, conceptually, and tangibly different. You can choose to ignore those differences if you want but they are there and not every is obligated to ignore them.

Yes, the physiological difference is how they have sex. What are the conceptual and tangible differences?

 

[TheComebackKid]

Yes, the physiological difference is how they have sex. What are the conceptual and tangible differences?

Physiologically it involves different genders. Men and women compliment each other mentally, physically, and spiritually whereas people of the same gender don't.

Conceptually its different because traditional marriage focuses on the coming together of the two genders, and all of their complimentary differences, into a harmonious pair.

And tangibly its different because a large number of traditional marriages produce strong, biological families which is essential for strong societies. SSM doesn't produce this.

We want to encourage the two genders to come together and we want to build and maintain strong societies. Marriage recognition and benefits is a way to encourage this if society so chooses.

 

[afrdzak]

Physiologically it involves different genders. Men and women compliment each other mentally, physically, and spiritually whereas people of the same gender don't.

I'm sorry. But this is such BS. So gay couples can't compliment each other spiritually or mentally (I'm assuming that by physically, you are strictly referring to sexual organs)? Of course they can. You just don't think they can.

Conceptually its different because traditional marriage focuses on the coming together of the two genders, and all of their complimentary differences, into a harmonious pair.

"Traditional marriage" focuses on a father selling his daughter to another family. I guess it just depends on what tradition you are focusing on.

And tangibly its different because a large number of traditional marriages produce strong, biological families which is essential for strong societies. SSM doesn't produce this.

A large number of "traditional marriages" produce jack squat with regards to child-bearing. True, strong societies need offspring and reproduction. But gay marriage doesn't disincentivize that practice one iota. It's not like gays are turning straights, or that gay people are stealing the suitors of straight folks.

 

[TheBox]

Physiologically it involves different genders. Men and women compliment each other mentally, physically, and spiritually whereas people of the same gender don't.

Complimentarity exists on a couple-by-couple basis. It cannot be broadened to all men and all women. Gay men and women compliment their same-sex partners and would not compliment opposite-sex partners.

In any event, complimentarity is not a necessary component of marriage. People who are entirely uncomplimentary can get married.

Conceptually its different because traditional marriage focuses on the coming together of the two genders, and all of their complimentary differences, into a harmonious pair.

This is simply your first item restated.

And tangibly its different because a large number of traditional marriages produce strong, biological families which is essential for strong societies. SSM doesn't produce this.

Natural reproduction is also not a necessary component of marriage.

We want to encourage the two genders to come together and we want to build and maintain strong societies. Marriage recognition and benefits is a way to encourage this if society so chooses.

We certainly would not want to encourage gay men and women to find opposite-sex partners for relationships and marry. These would be sham marriages.

Allowing SSM strengthens society in the same ways that traditional marriage does: increased stability and an improved child-raising environment and does nothing to detract from traditional marriage.

 

[ultramanhyata]

The only difference is the form of sex they have, which is completely irrelevant to the marriage contract.

Oh, yes, the entire distinction comes down to which positions a couple decides to explore in the bedroom.

Without even getting into the radical psychological and emotional differences between mixed-sex and same-sex relationships, the reproductive aspect, alone, forms the unbridgeable chasm of separation.

Yet the rabidly pro-gay marriage crowd refuses to acknowledge there is a profound and fundamental difference between a relationship that can, biologically, though with exceptions, produce offspring, and one that cannot, under any circumstances whatsoever, mix its genetic materials and reproduce.

"Since some heterosexuals are sterile or barren - or choose not to have children - the reproductive capabilities of gays and straights is exactly the same! Case closed!" *stamp foot*

 

[LazyFatass]

"Since some heterosexuals are sterile or barren - or choose not to have children - the reproductive capabilities of gays and straights is exactly the same! Case closed!" *stamp foot*

I think the point is more that since some heterosexual couples cannot reproduce or choose not to reproduce, coupled with the fact that ability to procreate is not a prerequisite nor a requirement of marriage, that the argument regarding the inability of homosexual couples to reproduce without intervention is irrelevant.

In this context, reproduction is not required in order to fulfill the legal requirements of marriage, so why should reproduction be held against homosexual couples?

 

[TheComebackKid]

I'm sorry. But this is such BS. So gay couples can't compliment each other spiritually or mentally (I'm assuming that by physically, you are strictly referring to sexual organs)? Of course they can. You just don't think they can.

I'm talking from a physiological perspective at least when it comes to mentally.

"Traditional marriage" focuses on a father selling his daughter to another family. I guess it just depends on what tradition you are focusing on.

Right, I'm focusing on the american tradition

A large number of "traditional marriages" produce jack squat with regards to child-bearing. True, strong societies need offspring and reproduction. But gay marriage doesn't disincentivize that practice one iota. It's not like gays are turning straights, or that gay people are stealing the suitors of straight folks.

Right but if the whole purpose of recognition and benefits is to encourage then we need to ask what we're encouraging and why. If the american people want to encourage traditional marriage so that it may produce strong families and strong socieites then what is the reason to encourage gay marriage with benefits and recognition? There is none or at least not the same.

 

[m52nickerson]

Oh, yes, the entire distinction comes down to which positions a couple decides to explore in the bedroom.

Without even getting into the radical psychological and emotional differences between mixed-sex and same-sex relationships, the reproductive aspect, alone, forms the unbridgeable chasm of separation.

Yet the rabidly pro-gay marriage crowd refuses to acknowledge there is a profound and fundamental difference between a relationship that can, biologically, though with exceptions, produce offspring, and one that cannot, under any circumstances whatsoever, mix its genetic materials and reproduce.

"Since some heterosexuals are sterile or barren - or choose not to have children - the reproductive capabilities of gays and straights is exactly the same! Case closed!" *stamp foot*

As far as the reproductive aspect it is case close unless you are going to argue that straight couples unable to have kids should not get married. Are you going to argue that? You should note that this argument has lost in every court of law it has been argued.

If not, time for you to get into the radical psychological and emotional differences and why they need to be taken into acount when it comes to marrage.

 

[afrdzak]

I'm talking from a physiological perspective at least when it comes to mentally.

What does this even mean?

Right, I'm focusing on the american tradition

The American tradition is to attempt to sell your daughter off into a family that is of higher station than your own. That tradition has since evolved. Marriage, in both the US as well as the world, has shown to be a continuing evolution.

Right but if the whole purpose of recognition and benefits is to encourage then we need to ask what we're encouraging and why. If the american people want to encourage traditional marriage so that it may produce strong families and strong socieites then what is the reason to encourage gay marriage with benefits and recognition? There is none or at least not the same.

If we are going to allow straight couples who refuse to, or are unable to bear children, the right to marry, then we should not hold the inability to bear children against gay people with regards to marriage. That is just plain hypocritical.

 

[TheComebackKid]

As far as the reproductive aspect it is case close unless you are going to argue that straight couples unable to have kids should not get married. Are you going to argue that? You should note that this argument has lost in every court of law it has been argued.

If not, time for you to get into the radical psychological and emotional differences and why they need to be taken into acount when it comes to marrage.

We could do this but we don't have to. If the american people are comfortable with marital recognition as an incentive or an encouragement for men and women to come together and produce strong families then I don't see what is wrong with that.

 

[m52nickerson]

Right but if the whole purpose of recognition and benefits is to encourage then we need to ask what we're encouraging and why. If the american people want to encourage traditional marriage so that it may produce strong families and strong socieites then what is the reason to encourage gay marriage with benefits and recognition? There is none or at least not the same.

...other than you can't show that same-sex marriages are unable to produce strong families and strong societies. Same sex couples can have children through adoption and other means.

Not to mention that regardless of what the American people want to promote not allowing same-sex marriage is discrimination.

 

[TheBox]

Without even getting into the radical psychological and emotional differences between mixed-sex and same-sex relationships

There are radical psychological and emotional differences? Can you elaborate?

, the reproductive aspect, alone, forms the unbridgeable chasm of separation.

Reproduction isn't an aspect of marriage.

"Since some heterosexuals are sterile or barren - or choose not to have children - the reproductive capabilities of gays and straights is exactly the same! Case closed!" *stamp foot*

It's almost as if providing an exemption to the "must reproduce" rule to millions of straight people who can't/won't reproduce and not providing the same exemption to millions of gay people who can't/won't reproduce is discriminatory!

 

[m52nickerson]

We could do this but we don't have to. If the american people are comfortable with marital recognition as an incentive or an encouragement for men and women to come together and produce strong families then I don't see what is wrong with that.

It is discrimination. Would you be okay with Blacks not being able to vote if a majority of americans wanted it?

 

[TheComebackKid]

What does this even mean?

It means that mentally men and women think and process information in fundmentally different but yet complimentary ways. Its science.

The American tradition is to attempt to sell your daughter off into a family that is of higher station than your own. That tradition has since evolved. Marriage, in both the US as well as the world, has shown to be a continuing evolution.

I only use the word "tradition" to distinguish between hetero and homo union. What particular tradition isn't the point. Lets just say we are starting our own, new tradition of one man/one woman unions and that way we don't have to even keep going down this road about what exact tradition our idea of marriage comes from. Its irrevelant.

If we are going to allow straight couples who refuse to, or are unable to bear children, the right to marry, then we should not hold the inability to bear children against gay people with regards to marriage. That is just plain hypocritical.

Not exactly because they still qualify the concept of bringing the two genders together in a harmonious way.

 

[m52nickerson]

It means that mentally men and women think and process information in fundmentally different but yet complimentary ways. Its science.

....

Not exactly because they still qualify the concept of bringing the two genders together in a harmonious way.

So same sex couples can't live harmoniously?

How are the differences in how man and women precess information valid when it comes to marriage?

 

[TheComebackKid]

...other than you can't show that same-sex marriages are unable to produce strong families and strong societies. Same sex couples can have children through adoption and other means.

Not to mention that regardless of what the American people want to promote not allowing same-sex marriage is discrimination.

I am under no obligation to prove this or even think this. The fact is that traditional families have been shown to produce strong families and provide a societal model. We don't have to then disprove every other model to encourage this one.