Originally Posted By Dabob2 <But there is something that a heterosexual couple can do that is essential to society that a homosexual couple simply can't.> Since no heterosexual couple is required to do that thing in order to be granted a marriage license, the point is moot.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan And a heterosexual couple could do that thing without being married, too.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Since no heterosexual couple is required to do that thing in order to be granted a marriage license, the point is moot.> You'd like to think so, but it's not.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<Since no heterosexual couple is required to do that thing in order to be granted a marriage license, the point is moot.>> <You'd like to think so, but it's not.> Back to the argument clinic. Seriously, that response has every bit of the keen insight, factual evidence, and intellectual vigor we've come to expect of you. Which is to say - none.
Originally Posted By mawnck You guys settled anything yet? OK, just checkin'. >>Drat! I am no good at this at all.<< Yes you are.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Seriously, that response has every bit of the keen insight, factual evidence, and intellectual vigor we've come to expect of you. Which is to say - none.> Ah yes, an insult in place of an argument. And an untrue one as well. Just what I've come to expect from you. Dismissal, distortion, and denigration.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "Dismissal, distortion, and denigration." Aren't they a law firm?
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "Ah yes, an insult in place of an argument. And an untrue one as well. Just what I've come to expect from you. Dismissal, distortion, and denigration." Wow, he sure told you.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<Seriously, that response has every bit of the keen insight, factual evidence, and intellectual vigor we've come to expect of you. Which is to say - none.>> <Ah yes, an insult in place of an argument. And an untrue one as well.> No, actually a true statement. You couldn't refute the fact that straight couples aren't required to have children in order to get a marriage license, which renders your attempted point about children moot. So you limped in with "you'd like to think so, but it's not." Simple naysaying. No evidence, no real substance, no nothing. As one M. Palin said "An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition. It's not just contradiction." <Just what I've come to expect from you. Dismissal, distortion, and denigration.> I might have denigrated the lameness of your argument clinic response, but I didn't distort, or even dismiss. I implicitly invited you to offer something of substance. The invitation stands.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh Please. This conversation isn't occuring in a vaccuum. All of you should know the reasons why I believe the point I've made was valid. I've explained it multiple times, and backed it up with multiple sources. You might not agree with it, but to pretend it doesn't exist is simply dishonest.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "Please. This conversation isn't occuring in a vaccuum. All of you should know the reasons why I believe the point I've made was valid. I've explained it multiple times, and backed it up with multiple sources. You might not agree with it, but to pretend it doesn't exist is simply dishonest." We're not in a vaccuum?
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Please. This conversation isn't occuring in a vaccuum. All of you should know the reasons why I believe the point I've made was valid. I've explained it multiple times, and backed it up with multiple sources. You might not agree with it, but to pretend it doesn't exist is simply dishonest.> That doesn't even make sense. What "multiple sources" does one need to know that a heterosexual couple can produce a child, and a straight one can't without outside help? I think you're just claiming "multiple sources" as a knee-jerk reaction. The point is true as far as it goes, but moot when it comes to issuing marriage licenses. If producing children was required, then you'd have a point (although lesbians with access to fertility clinics might have a beef). But since it's not a requirement, saying that straight couples can produce children and gay couples don't and therefore straights deserve marriage licenses and gays don't is a non-sequitur.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>although lesbians with access to fertility clinics might have a beef<< So to speak.
