Question: Now that expensive militaristic fascism is going out, will these boards still retain their vitriol? by chrisisall

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
So if a gay mand were to marry a woman, or a lesbian to marry a man, isn't there "deception" there too?

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

That's been going on for ages, and for all sorts of reasons, not just gaining citizenship.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 21, 2008 4:26 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
So if a gay mand were to marry a woman, or a lesbian to marry a man, isn't there "deception" there too?

That depends on the circumstances.

For example, if the man concealed his sexuality from the woman, then that could be grounds for divorce or annullment.

If she knew and they didn't consumate, same thing.

If she knew and they did consumate (which is physically possible, especially if the person is bisexual), then no fraud.

One possibility is neither knew...such as the man does not realize he's gay till he sees his wife gain a lot of weight. That would be grounds for divorce, but not for fraud.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 21, 2008 4:38 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
That's been going on for ages, and for all sorts of reasons, not just gaining citizenship.

So if something's been going on for "ages" it's OK?

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 21, 2008 4:51 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Anecdotal incidents of elderly or couples who choose NOT to have kids, etc do not change the fact that the vast majority of man and woman who come together to share their lives with each other will have children, and that bond is found no where else in our society.

And who says that the vast majority of gay couples choosing marriage will not want to be parents to children? Through adoption, through artificial methods, or whichever way.

They face the same challenges that infertile heterosexual couples face, in both cases the willingness is perfectly evident and should be honored accordingly. I see no difference between these two special cases at all. In fact, the number of couples who have trouble conceiving is at about 15%, which is higher than the generally assumed percentage of homosexual people in a population. To me, homosexual couples fall into this category of fertility-challenged families.

Why is the theoretical ability to biologically create children together so much more fundamental than the desire and choice to form a family together? Can you explain that?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 21, 2008 4:53 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
That's been going on for ages, and for all sorts of reasons, not just gaining citizenship.
So if something's been going on for "ages" it's OK?

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

Absolutely! Slavery went on for 400+ yrs, so it ( I'm joking here ) should never ( This is only sarcasm , not real ) have been removed.

I love how you twist and distort my words. You HAVE to know that wasn't my point, in the least. The issue was fraud marriages for the sake of gaining citizenship, and now you're off on a segue to some ever open ended tangent. My POINT was that gays have been marrying for fear of being found out, because they were lying to themselves, their friends and family, etc......it's not the same when 2 people knowingly set out to commit fraud, as when 1 person is trying to hide the truth, or thinks that by marrying a woman, he'll FIX himself and fall into society's norm.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 21, 2008 5:02 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:

And who says that the vast majority of gay couples choosing marriage will not want to be parents to children? Through adoption, through artificial methods, or whichever way.

Same sex couples can't have children as married couples can. Sure, both may adopt, or artificially carry to term, but the can't have a child, genetically made of those 2 individuals, as a result of their union.

Quote:
They face the same challenges that infertile heterosexual couples face, in both cases the willingness is perfectly evident and should be honored accordingly. I see no difference between these two special cases at all. In fact, the number of couples who have trouble conceiving is at about 15%, which is higher than the generally assumed percentage of homosexual people in a population. To me, homosexual couples fall into this category of fertility-challenged families.

Why is the theoretical ability to biologically create children together so much more fundamental than the desire and choice to form a family together? Can you explain that?

What's to explain? Nature has equipped man and women to perform specific task which can't be duplicated. The 'man' who gave birth to a child was born a woman, by nature. Surgery and chemicals aside, she's still a woman. Under no circumstance can a homosexual couple have children, naturally. ( I'm not commenting on adoption here ) THAT'S THE BIG DEAL! Survival of the species, and not merely taking care of other's offspring, is what makes marriage between a man and woman such a vital basis for humanity . I don't see how anyone can argue or even contend any of that. It's how life works. Period.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 21, 2008 5:44 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:

And who says that the vast majority of gay couples choosing marriage will not want to be parents to children? Through adoption, through artificial methods, or whichever way.

Same sex couples can't have children as married couples can. Sure, both may adopt, or artificially carry to term, but the can't have a child, genetically made of those 2 individuals, as a result of their union.

They bring to marriage the same equipment that infertile heterosexual couples do. To me, they are both equally qualified to form a family.

Either you DO make fertility the only deciding factor, or you don't, but do not make silly exceptions like "most hetero couples aren't infertile". 15% need help. That's just inconsistent with your supposed priorities.

And I maintain that it is not the making of babies that creates family, but the raising of them in a loving home. Ask Joss, I'm sure he would agree. All his shows are about family, at their heart and it is pretty much never biological family.

Quote:

Quote:
They face the same challenges that infertile heterosexual couples face, in both cases the willingness is perfectly evident and should be honored accordingly. I see no difference between these two special cases at all. In fact, the number of couples who have trouble conceiving is at about 15%, which is higher than the generally assumed percentage of homosexual people in a population. To me, homosexual couples fall into this category of fertility-challenged families.

Why is the theoretical ability to biologically create children together so much more fundamental than the desire and choice to form a family together? Can you explain that?

What's to explain? Nature has equipped man and women to perform specific task which can't be duplicated.

So why would they need marriage in order to have sex until the woman is pregnant? They don't.

Sex makes babies. Artifical means make babies.

Marriage isn't about making babies. It's about possibly providing a home for them.

Quote:
Survival of the species, and not merely taking care of other's offspring, is what makes marriage between a man and woman such a vital basis for humanity . I don't see how anyone can argue or even contend any of that. It's how life works. Period.

And yet that baby would not have been born to the woman-turned-man and his wife, had it not been the choice of that married couple to have it created. A choice made because they want to be a family. Do you not appreciate their contribution to the survival of the species? A baby is a baby and counts toward the final tally.

Or do you oppose the awful artificiality that should not be supported by marriage? Au naturale only? Again I point at infertile hetero couples.

Also:

Heterosexual men and woman have sex, and have babies. Inside of marriage or outside of it. Marriage is not the thing that guarantees a stable number of babies being born. Babies were born before there was marriage. Species without any gay marriage can die out. (Hello, pandas.)

Sex and choice make babies.

Hell, we can have baby farms all over the planet to ensure that even more people are produced and all we would end with is chaos and pain.

We do not need an indiscriminate number of more homo sapiens. We need decently raised people.

Now, what is more likely to actually make decent people of the babies born? Families. Whether born into them or adopted into them, conceived naturally or through artificial means, families are what babies need. The babies that are being born, whether to a heterosexual marriage or a heterosexual one-night-stand or to a pregnant teen or whichever the circumstances.

Marriage is the choice of two peole to form a family together. THAT is what is honored by the term, not the fact that they have sex that can lead to pregnancy.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 21, 2008 5:52 AM

America loves a winner!

Infertile heterosexual couples are anecdotal, not the norm. The basics don't change. Man + woman = baby. 2 of the same sex = no baby ,ever.

No one is saying same sex partners can't join to make a home, but they can't have kids naturally, and their union should not be called a 'marriage'.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 21, 2008 5:55 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Infertile heterosexual couples are anecdotal, not the norm. The basics don't change. Man + woman = baby. 2 of the same sex = no baby ,ever.

No one is saying same sex partners can't join to make a home, but they can't have kids naturally, and their union should not be called a 'marriage'.

The number of heterosexual couples who cannot have babies is larger than the number of homosexual couples who cannot have babies. How is 15% anecdotal?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 21, 2008 6:05 AM

Also: So having sex that results in pregnancy is your definition of what marriage is about?

The raising a family part is nigh on irrelevant?

Why the special term and institution for something that hetero couples can and do engage in frequently without any special committment? So they have an easier time inducing pregnancy than infertile or homosexual couples do, but that alone doesn't deserve special aknowledgement. If that's all it took, there wouldn't be nearly as many babies in the world waiting for adoption.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 21, 2008 6:13 AM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:

The number of heterosexual couples who cannot have babies is larger than the number of homosexual couples who cannot have babies. How is 15% anecdotal?

I do not think this word means what he think it means.

Montoyaisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 21, 2008 7:33 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
I do not think this word means what he think it means.

Inconcievable!!!

Trolls against McCain

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 21, 2008 7:49 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
No one is saying same sex partners can't join to make a home

Of course nobody is saying that because it's unconstitutional. As much as you'd like to tell gays what they're doing is wrong, you're not powerful enough and you can't.

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor: but they can't have kids naturally, and their union should not be called a 'marriage'.

Fine...you need to make sure fertility tests are part of the marriage license process. If one parent fails, no license for them, untill they undergo fertility treatment and things change.

After gay marriage is legalized, then that kind of draconian Conservative Evangelical inspired inquisition crap will matter as much as Bush Republicans...not at all.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 21, 2008 8:00 AM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by MalBadInLatin:
Inconcievable!!!

AURaptor: friendless, brainless, helpless, hopeless! Do you want me to send you back to where you were? Unemployed in Greenland!

isall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 21, 2008 8:12 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...

Prop 8 is just a way for heteros who don't like gays to express that without having to say it out loud individually. The rest is just smoke and misdirection and blah blah. If they felt differently there would be no need for the conversation.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 21, 2008 8:20 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Or maybe folks dont have a problem with gays...just the idea of them getting "married".

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 21, 2008 8:21 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Rap
How is 15% anecdotal?
ChrisIsAll
I do not think this word means what he think it means.

Just like with McCain's odd use of the word 'prisoner' (when he addressed a rally as 'fellow prisoners'), this has got my attention stuck. What did he mean ? What word was he going for ? How is this ... incidental ? accidental ? occasional ?

ARRgghhhh - I fell into a word ear-worm and can't get out !

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 21, 2008 8:22 AM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Or maybe folks dont have a problem with gays...just the idea of them getting "married".

Gays should be allowed to make the same mistakes as straights.

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 21, 2008 8:37 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:
Survival of the species, and not merely taking care of other's offspring, is what makes marriage between a man and woman such a vital basis for humanity

To me, the selfless act of caring for ANOTHER'S offspring is a far more "human" gesture than caring for your own offspring.

So far, not one single person here has explained to me the how or why of gay marriage destroying the species. If you allow gay couples to marry, heteros can't fuck anymore? No one will be allowed to breed? I mean, what the hell? What is it that's so scary about it?

I think what's closer to the truth is that you actually think god is going to destroy the world if gays are accepted into it as "real people". Like all the hatred, bigotry, war, greed, and general horribleness wasn't enough to doom us all anyway - NOW god's really pissed, 'cause two dudes kissed and the people didn't kill them for it.

And that's about as rational an argument as any I've gotten AGAINST gay marriage.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 21, 2008 8:42 AM

KWICKO

Quote:
No one is saying same sex partners can't join to make a home, but they can't have kids naturally, and their union should not be called a 'marriage'.

And here you are again, back at the "if you can't have children naturally, you don't deserve to be married or call it a marriage" riff. I thought you explained, yelled, shouted, wheedled, and cavilled (IN ALL CAPS, NO LESS - Would you like me to quote it back to you?) about how this is NOT what you meant. And yet, here you are, spewing it again.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 21, 2008 10:10 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Being one of those infertile heteros...

Right about now there's some folk in this thread I'd really like to hit with a brick.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 21, 2008 11:15 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Being one of those infertile heteros...

Right about now there's some folk in this thread I'd really like to hit with a brick.

-F

Oh my goodness. I guess it was me bringing the subject up. I apologize if I was being insensitive or thoughtless. I didn't think I was but if I offended you, I am sorry.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 21, 2008 11:36 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Right about now there's some folk in this thread I'd really like to hit with a brick.

On that note...Happy Thankgiving. I'm going on vacation for the next week.

Imagine, a whole week of me not trashing the Bill of Rights or jailing the innocent.

I note for the record that I'm heading to Vegas for a few days to get away from the snowstorm we've had in NE Ohio and celebrate global warming, gambling, drinking, and the free speech rights of exotic dancers (er...I mean check out the Browns game in the sportbar with some buddies while my hot girlfriend hangs out by the pool).

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 21, 2008 1:05 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
AURaptor: friendless, brainless, helpless, hopeless! Do you want me to send you back to where you were? Unemployed in Greenland!

AURaptor: If you swim towards the ship I assure you that no harm will come to you...I doubt you'll get such an offer from the Eels.......

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 21, 2008 1:09 PM

STORYMARK

Quote:
Originally posted by pizmobeach:
Prop 8 is just a way for heteros who don't like gays to express that without having to say it out loud individually. The rest is just smoke and misdirection and blah blah. If they felt differently there would be no need for the conversation.

Yep. No matter how much they protest, this is the truth.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 21, 2008 1:19 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by MalBadInLatin:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
No one is saying same sex partners can't join to make a home
Of course nobody is saying that because it's unconstitutional. As much as you'd like to tell gays what they're doing is wrong, you're not powerful enough and you can't.

What gays are doing is clearly right, for them. It'd be wrong for those who weren't gay, I suppose, but that's hardly the issue now, is it ?

Quote:

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor: but they can't have kids naturally, and their union should not be called a 'marriage'.

Fine...you need to make sure fertility tests are part of the marriage license process. If one parent fails, no license for them, untill they undergo fertility treatment and things change.

After gay marriage is legalized, then that kind of draconian Conservative Evangelical inspired inquisition crap will matter as much as Bush Republicans...not at all.

No I don't, because, as I've stated mulltiple times now, the only way children are born is if a man and woman have sex. It's how nature is set up, and yes, it IS anectotal for the very few ( I'm not blindly accepting the 15 % figure to be whole sale fact ) couples who can't have kids. By nature, it takes both sexes for humans to reproduce. I fail to see a reason to redefine marriage after 1000's of yrs simply to pacify a noisy , very small minority. This has nothing to do w/ 'rights', but more to do about indoctrination , and I for one am never going to yield this simple, straight forward ( damn bad pun, my bad ) matter. There's no intent to dehumanize, suppress, deny or any of the hair brained nonsenes that's being thrown around by extreme activist over this issue.

Only a man and woman can marry. End of discussion.

p.s. ....and Mal, I'd take it as a kindness if, when debating issues in the future, you refrain from trying to tell your opposition what THEY think, simply because it fits into your preconceived template which enables you to vilify those who don't agree with you or see things differently.

Thank you

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 21, 2008 2:23 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"This has nothing to do w/ 'rights', but more to do about indoctrination"

Hello,

I agree that it has to do with indoctrination, and not rights.

Certain people have been indoctrinated to believe that marriage should only exist between heterosexuals.

Certain people have been indoctrinated to resist this change as a threat to their values.

Certain people have been indoctrinated to blind themselves to inequity in order to resist change.

If this had to do with rights, there'd be no discussion. People would say, "They want to get married? So what? No skin off my nose."

But this isn't about rights. It's about indoctrination, and those that resist gay marriage have been wholly indoctrinated.

As an aside, sterile people are no more anecdotal than fertile people. Both can be medically proven, and thus exist factually. Marriage does not involve any biological imparative to reproduce. It is a financial and social construct. It has evolved over thousands of years, and we should continue to allow it to evolve.

Once again, I am so disgusted with this whole issue, I wish that government would remove all marriage legislation altogether from the books. If two (or more) adults can't get married when they want to, then the legal framework of this institution is intrinsically flawed. Since the majority don't want to fix the law's flaws, they should be deprived of its benefits.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 21, 2008 2:40 PM

FREMDFIRMA

AgentR, wasn't you I found offensive, it was the idea that infertile couples shouldn't marry in light of an almost decades long relationship (basically paperless marriage) blowing up in my face for *exactly* that reason.

And just the thought of Rappy's usual stone-blind, pig-ignorant philistine barbarism makes me ponder if that brick wouldn't better be served unto him as an enema rather than upside the head.

Course, one would have to move his HEAD out of the way first - given where it usually is, and thus I suppose you could do both in a single shot.

-Frem

PS, Yes Rappy, that is a deliberate and intentional insult directed soley at you, and given you're recent tenous grasp on reality, I just wanna make triple damn sure you KNOW that.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 21, 2008 3:13 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor: Only a man and woman can marry. End of disucssion.

p.s. ....and Mal, I'd take it as a kindness if, when debating issues in the future, you refrain from trying to tell your opposition what THEY think, simply because it fits into your preconceived template which enables you to vilify those who don't agree with you or see things differently.

Thank you

Thank you for the kindly worded post AURaptor.

Unfortunatly due to circumstances beyond my control, which occured after your end of the discussion, as seen underlined above, I am unable to discuss a discussion that already has a great end. I'm attracted your end AURaptor. Not many fellas have ends like yours!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 21, 2008 3:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
And just the thought of Rappy's usual stone-blind, pig-ignorant philistine barbarism makes me ponder if that brick wouldn't better be served unto him as an enema rather than upside the head.

Nice...FFF.NET should have a stone wall somewhere where we could imortalize such ponderings. I read it four times. And I vote enema without a doubt!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 21, 2008 3:25 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

And just the thought of Rappy's usual stone-blind, pig-ignorant philistine barbarism makes me ponder if that brick wouldn't better be served unto him as an enema rather than upside the head.

You seem to want to live in a world where you can merely talk and protest your way out of everything. I'll stay in the real world.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 21, 2008 4:05 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Rap

You seem to live in a world formed principally by your need to believe in your delusions, a dangerous place to be, without doubt.

***************************************************************

Feedback is your friend.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 21, 2008 4:12 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Rap

You seem to live in a world formed principally by your need to believe in your delusions, a dangerous place to be, without doubt.

***************************************************************

Feedback is your friend.

Oh, I have no delusisons, my friend. I'm quite aware of the ugly realities of this world.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 21, 2008 4:26 PM

SWISH

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
And just the thought of Rappy's usual stone-blind, pig-ignorant philistine barbarism makes me ponder if that brick wouldn't better be served unto him as an enema rather than upside the head.

Course, one would have to move his HEAD out of the way first - given where it usually is, and thus I suppose you could do both in a single shot.

Fremdfirma, sometimes I wonder about you, but you just won me over.

AUraptor - any follow up on that "neutral" Zogby poll that you were championing?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 21, 2008 6:04 PM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Or maybe folks dont have a problem with gays...just the idea of them getting "married".

It's not even about "marriage" really - it's people just don't want them to be happy. "If I'm not happy then no way they should be! They're freaks afterall! How'd they get ahead of me?!"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 21, 2008 6:40 PM

KWICKO

Quote:
Originally posted by pizmobeach:
Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Or maybe folks dont have a problem with gays...just the idea of them getting "married".

It's not even about "marriage" really - it's people just don't want them to be happy. "If I'm not happy then no way they should be! They're freaks afterall! How'd they get ahead of me?!"

Is that why they call them "gay"?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 21, 2008 9:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

No I don't, because, as I've stated mulltiple times now, the only way children are born is if a man and woman have sex. It's how nature is set up, and yes, it IS anectotal for the very few ( I'm not blindly accepting the 15 % figure to be whole sale fact ) couples who can't have kids.

Mind, this 15% includes all couples who experience trouble having children.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infertility#Prevalence

"Fertility problems affect one in seven couples in the UK. Most couples (about 84 out of every 100) who have regular sexual intercourse (that is, every 2 to 3 days) and who do not use contraception will get pregnant within a year. About 92 out of 100 couples who are trying to get pregnant do so within 2 years."

15% have trouble upon trying for a year, 8% have trouble after trying for two years. I think 8 percent is still pretty darn hefty.

Aside from the fact that sex is not the only way children are born in this day and age, you still fail to explain why the creation of children is the point of marriage when this can and does easily occur outside of marriage.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 21, 2008 9:49 PM

Frem, I'm relieved that it wasn't me.

And I'm also sorry to hear you had to go through such a painful thing.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 21, 2008 11:43 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Quote:
You seem to want to live in a world where you can merely talk and protest your way out of everything. I'll stay in the real world.

I do a damn good job of influencing events with talk, there Rappy, far better than you, unfortunately it's got me more or less railroaded into doin it for the city I live in now, and didn't *quite* manage to talk my way out of that, but overall, it DOES work, and quite well as a matter of fact.

AgentR, it hurts, and it's a bit of a dissappointment that things came to that pass, but down where it counts I'd rather see the girl happy even if it's not with me - she's been kinda mortified lately cause she sorta had this idea that I was damn near emotionally invulnerable, mostly cause I show so very little even to folks I am close to, and now she's all beating herself up over it in spite of such being so unhelpful and unnecessary.

It does however give one to wonder, now that she joins the pack of crazy ex's... do I make em that way, or are they such because it takes a nutter to be attracted to me in the first place ?

Cause according to most of society, I'm wackier than Bugs Bunny on three hits of microdot.

Worst thing is... *I* happen to be the sane one!
(they're all crazy, don'tcha know)

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 22, 2008 2:14 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

AgentR, it hurts, and it's a bit of a dissappointment that things came to that pass, but down where it counts I'd rather see the girl happy even if it's not with me - she's been kinda mortified lately cause she sorta had this idea that I was damn near emotionally invulnerable, mostly cause I show so very little even to folks I am close to, and now she's all beating herself up over it in spite of such being so unhelpful and unnecessary.

It does however give one to wonder, now that she joins the pack of crazy ex's... do I make em that way, or are they such because it takes a nutter to be attracted to me in the first place ?

Cause according to most of society, I'm wackier than Bugs Bunny on three hits of microdot.

Worst thing is... *I* happen to be the sane one!
(they're all crazy, don'tcha know)

-Frem

I believe that we're all fools when it comes to relationships - but judging by your wise and generous attitude, I'll admit that some may be more foolish than others.

I have yet, though, to see a person who doesn't have a crazy side. Butterfly obsession, belching artistry, oversharing of intimate details, extreme water conservationism, abject hatred of beans... It makes me love people.

Everyone is crazy. So it's probably not you.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 22, 2008 3:14 AM