What undermimes marriage more?

[afleitch]

Those who think marriage is only for 'making babies' actually undermime it more than anyone else- neglecting love and devotion. Sex is for having kids, marriage is a bond between two people who love each other unconditionally.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

If an infertile man or women gets married, it is a sin!

Or an elderly couple who choose to marry

No.  And I can't stand it when you liberals use this argument.  Infertility is a disease (and I know that's not the right word, but I can't think of it).  So either:
a) Homosexuality is disease.  And why would God punish people for something they have no control over.
b) It's not a disease--you're argument is shot down.

No; the result of homosexuality and infertility is the same (no kids), which is the criterion you and others were using to decide whether a marriage should be allowed.  To point out that the outcome of the two conditions is the same makes no judgement about the conditions themselves.

No--the criteria is if there are no MEDICAL abnormalities, it's OK.  In fertility it is a condition in the sexual organs that causes it.  You're brain/heart doesn't say, "I can't have kids."  There IS a difference.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Inks, you are young, you are still impressionable First of all, I'm not a liberal- i'm an active member of the British Conservative Party. It's not just liberals that support gay marriage or civil unions.

Secondly infertility is not a 'disease.' It's more of a condition. It can be caused by disease yes, but it can also occur through other methods (like the menopause for example)

First--the liberal tag wasn't directed at per se you, but the whole of you.  (Why is your Avatar Dem. from the UK?)
2nd--I specifically said disease is the wrong word--medical condition is what I was looking for.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Has no one ever told you that it's biologically impossible for a man to give birth?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Those who think marriage is only for 'making babies' actually undermime it more than anyone else- neglecting love and devotion. Sex is for having kids, marriage is a bond between two people who love each other unconditionally.

I never said that.  But having kids should be a product ONLY of marriage--not out of wedlock, or homosexual civil unions.

[afleitch]

No--the criteria is if there are no MEDICAL abnormalities, it's OK.  In fertility it is a condition in the sexual organs that causes it.  You're brain/heart doesn't say, "I can't have kids."  There IS a difference.

Infertility can also be the result of long term physchological factors. Its not always physical.

[Q]

If an infertile man or women gets married, it is a sin!

Or an elderly couple who choose to marry

No.  And I can't stand it when you liberals use this argument.  Infertility is a disease (and I know that's not the right word, but I can't think of it).  So either:
a) Homosexuality is disease.  And why would God punish people for something they have no control over.
b) It's not a disease--you're argument is shot down.

No; the result of homosexuality and infertility is the same (no kids), which is the criterion you and others were using to decide whether a marriage should be allowed.  To point out that the outcome of the two conditions is the same makes no judgement about the conditions themselves.

No--the criteria is if there are no MEDICAL abnormalities, it's OK.  In fertility it is a condition in the sexual organs that causes it.  You're brain/heart doesn't say, "I can't have kids."  There IS a difference.

What about a heterosexual couple that is medically capable of having children but decides that they desire none.  Should they be allowed to marry?

[Alcon]

If an infertile man or women gets married, it is a sin!

Or an elderly couple who choose to marry

No.  And I can't stand it when you liberals use this argument.  Infertility is a disease (and I know that's not the right word, but I can't think of it).  So either:
a) Homosexuality is disease.  And why would God punish people for something they have no control over.
b) It's not a disease--you're argument is shot down.

No; the result of homosexuality and infertility is the same (no kids), which is the criterion you and others were using to decide whether a marriage should be allowed.  To point out that the outcome of the two conditions is the same makes no judgement about the conditions themselves.

No--the criteria is if there are no MEDICAL abnormalities, it's OK.  In fertility it is a condition in the sexual organs that causes it.  You're brain/heart doesn't say, "I can't have kids."  There IS a difference.

So, it's a psychological "disease" (ignoring the fact that no medical organisation in the world considers it to be such; I suggest you look up what the criterea for a mental disorder are).  Are you saying anyone with a disease that prevents childbirth should not be allowed to marry?  How do you propose to enforce this if so?

Democrat and liberal are not the same thing, per se, Inks.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

No--the criteria is if there are no MEDICAL abnormalities, it's OK.  In fertility it is a condition in the sexual organs that causes it.  You're brain/heart doesn't say, "I can't have kids."  There IS a difference.

Infertility can also be the result of long term physchological factors. Its not always physical.

Did you mean psychological (not being sarcastic)?

[afleitch]

No--the criteria is if there are no MEDICAL abnormalities, it's OK.  In fertility it is a condition in the sexual organs that causes it.  You're brain/heart doesn't say, "I can't have kids."  There IS a difference.

Infertility can also be the result of long term physchological factors. Its not always physical.

Did you mean psychological (not being sarcastic)?

Yes, it was a mispelling, but psychological factors such as stress and grief brought about by loss can affect fertility.

[Jake]

It's not just liberals that support gay marriage or civil unions.

To be fair, it's liberals and gays.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

If an infertile man or women gets married, it is a sin!

Or an elderly couple who choose to marry

No.  And I can't stand it when you liberals use this argument.  Infertility is a disease (and I know that's not the right word, but I can't think of it).  So either:
a) Homosexuality is disease.  And why would God punish people for something they have no control over.
b) It's not a disease--you're argument is shot down.

No; the result of homosexuality and infertility is the same (no kids), which is the criterion you and others were using to decide whether a marriage should be allowed.  To point out that the outcome of the two conditions is the same makes no judgement about the conditions themselves.

No--the criteria is if there are no MEDICAL abnormalities, it's OK.  In fertility it is a condition in the sexual organs that causes it.  You're brain/heart doesn't say, "I can't have kids."  There IS a difference.

So, it's a psychological "disease" (ignoring the fact that no medical organisation in the world considers it to be such; I suggest you look up what the criterea for a mental disorder are).  Are you saying anyone with a disease that prevents childbirth should not be allowed to marry?  How do you propose to enforce this if so?

Democrat and liberal are not the same thing, per se, Inks.

I never said it is a disease.  My whole point is that it is not.  It is a direct conscious act to rebel against God and nature.  I never said tha anyone w/ a disease should be prevented from having kids.

I know Democrats and liberals are not the same thing.  Are we now moving on to personal attacks in Latin?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

No--the criteria is if there are no MEDICAL abnormalities, it's OK.  In fertility it is a condition in the sexual organs that causes it.  You're brain/heart doesn't say, "I can't have kids."  There IS a difference.

Infertility can also be the result of long term physchological factors. Its not always physical.

Did you mean psychological (not being sarcastic)?

Yes, it was a mispelling, but psychological factors such as stress and grief brought about by loss can affect fertility.

How.  Explain to me how stress effects fertility.

[© tweed]

It is a direct conscious act to rebel against God and nature.  I never said tha anyone w/ a disease should be prevented from having kids.

LOL.  I seriously doubt that is the intent.

[afleitch]

It's not just liberals that support gay marriage or civil unions.

To be fair, it's liberals and gays.

Sure it is Jake...sure it is. It is far wider political circle than that. Liberatarians spring to mind for example.

[Alcon]

Personal attacks in Latin?  Per se doesn't mean anything offensive.

I misinterpreted your earlier post.  If you believe that homosexuality is a conscious choice to rebel against God, I ask you why anyone would chose this, especially devout Christians, some of whom are gay?

I could show you a range of studies that suggest that homosexuality has no correlation with much of anything from a range of organisations.  Do you want that?

Also, Jake, I've seen polls showing like 56% support for civil unions.  That's a lot of gay conservatives.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

It is a direct conscious act to rebel against God and nature.  I never said tha anyone w/ a disease should be prevented from having kids.

LOL.  I seriously doubt that is the intent.

It may not be their intent, but that is what it is.  It seems clear to me that 2 guys can't have a kid, so something must not be right.  Have you ever seen any other homosexual thing other than a human?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I'm neither a liberal or gay and I support civil unions.

I did use to know someone called Percy though.

[afleitch]

How.  Explain to me how stress effects fertility.

Impotence is the well known one.

Read about other ways here:

Reuters

Shortened the URL to avoid horizontal scrollbar.

[© tweed]

It is a direct conscious act to rebel against God and nature.  I never said tha anyone w/ a disease should be prevented from having kids.

LOL.  I seriously doubt that is the intent.

It may not be their intent, but that is what it is.

That's a contradiction

If gays are consiously acting in a way so it will be offensive to god, which you believe, then their intent is to anger god.

[Alcon]

It is a direct conscious act to rebel against God and nature.  I never said tha anyone w/ a disease should be prevented from having kids.

LOL.  I seriously doubt that is the intent.

It may not be their intent, but that is what it is.  It seems clear to me that 2 guys can't have a kid, so something must not be right.  Have you ever seen any other homosexual thing other than a human?

Homosexuality has been observed in a number of other animals.  I'm surprised you have not heard of it; it was on the news quite a lot.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Have you ever seen any other homosexual thing other than a human?

Yes. Various animals. I've seen it meself (I've lived most of my life in very rural areas, btw).

[afleitch]

Have you ever seen any other homosexual thing other than a human?

Take a look at the animal kingdom - it's all around you. Male American bison have been known to penetrate each other for example.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Personal attacks in Latin?  Per se doesn't mean anything offensive.

I misinterpreted your earlier post.  If you believe that homosexuality is a conscious choice to rebel against God, I ask you why anyone would chose this, especially devout Christians, some of whom are gay?

I could show you a range of studies that suggest that homosexuality has no correlation with much of anything from a range of organisations.  Do you want that?

Also, Jake, I've seen polls showing like 56% support for civil unions.  That's a lot of gay conservatives.

It seemed like a personal attack b/c you emphasized it right after I said it.  So sorry for the misinterpretation.

I would say that any Christian who is gay has some serious problems.  I would like to see your stats--I'm a statistics kind of person.

[afleitch]

I would say that any Christian who is gay has some serious problems.  

I am. And I get along just fine thanks