[Re: The old "gays can't reproduce, so they can't marry" argument:]
Fred: So what do you call the union of a couple of 70 year old's who can't have children?
Tommy: Biologically still possible, Fred. Two dïcks? two vaginas? Can't happen in a billion years. That's the diff.
60 comments
Oh right, because in the bible people had children when they were 500 years old.
Yeah, human biology doesn't work that way.
So okay, I get the whole "she still has the parts, so god can create a miracle" thing, but does this mean that a woman who's had a hysterectomy due to uterine cancer or something similar should have to get divorced immediately, or can no longer get married?
Or is it just because he thinks gays are "icky"?
Oh for the love of
Menopause!!
MENOPAUSE!!
MENOPAUSE!
/Desertphile
Oh Tommy, Tommy, Tommy.....
I'm guessing you failed biology, or were homskulled, weren't you?
You people don't know your Bible very well, do you? Abraham was ninety-nine, and his wife Sarah was the same age and barren as well, but by the miraculous intervention of God they had a son, Isaac.
Any heterosexual relationship is potentially reproductive, if God wills it, in accordance with His command to be fruitful and multiply. Homosexual relationships are condemned by God and will never be fruitful. Claiming that homosexual and heterosexual relationships are somehow the 'same', based on the 'feelings' of the people involved, is a profound category error.
Egg + sperm = baby. It takes both.
Old men have a lower sperm count than younger men, but that's not what makes Tommy's statement ridiculous.
Rather, it's that Tommy clearly has no sense of what the term "menopause" means, what it has to do with having children, or that the average 70-year-old woman has been post-menopausal for well over a decade, if not two. Her ovaries are no longer producing, and her uterus is no longer in any condition to carry a baby around for nine months.
Also, infertile couples, both homo- and heterosexual, are capable of having children through artificial methods. Remember, penis + vagina are not part of the baby-making equation. Just egg + sperm. Thanks to modern technology, a man and a woman do not necessarily have to have sex in order for egg and sperm to come together.
All these people claiming that infertile couples, those where the women is post-menopausal or has had a hysterectomy, or any other couple which cannot naturally bear children is "ok" because God could create a miracle:
Are they ignoring the fact that their God, if he exists as they believe him to, is equally capable of making a man get pregnant, or making a woman get pregnant by another woman? That's what omnipotence means, after all. So yes, actually, in their crazy little world, "two dicks" or "two vaginas" is equally as possible as a seventy-year-old dick and a seventy-year-old vagina, and if they say otherwise, they're insulting their own god by implying he is not omnipotent.
So God can cause miracles, but only when fundies want Him to? Um, okay. By the way, even according to your own Bible, reproduction doesn't require a man and a woman; ever hear of Mary?
Tommy hasn't heard of menopause, or that it has affected virtually all women by the time they are 70.
@ mad the swine:
Before citing the bible and using god as arguments for or against anything, you must first prove that god exists, and the bible is a reliable source of information.
Otherwise, it is no more valid than if I cited Harry Potter.
My brother is infertile, and as such is incapable of having his own children.
Do you want to deny him the happiness he has with his wife too, Tommy Shitforbrains?
@ mad the swine: the Holy Buy Bull isn't proof.
So now your argument is to allow infertile heterosexual couples to marry since your god might create a miracle? Why don't we wait for such a miracle to happen before we decide, hmm? In the meantime, let gays and lesbians marry the consenting adult of their choice and keep your nose out of their business.
"Any heterosexual relationship is potentially reproductive, if God wills it, in accordance with His command to be fruitful and multiply."
Except for those of us who have had hysterectomies, fucktard.
@mad the swine:
Since nobody in modern times can have babies even close to that age, most of us hold that as evidence of the unreliability of the Bible, not evidence that such things are really possible. I mean, the Bible can't even agree on the genealogy of Jesus, which ought to be pretty important considering he's supposed to be the son of God.
@Tommy:
Let me paraphrase your argument, if I may:
"The state has the right to pronounce that marriage is not a fundamental human right, and further can proclaim marriage to be based on any arbitrary criterion it deems fit. For instance, it can and should base marriage entirely on the fertility of each couple, implicitly denying it to anyone who does not meet this criterion." I would like to add why you consider fertility the defining factor, but I can't figure it out...
Actually, why stop at not letting infertile couples marry, going along the "can't reproduce, can't marry argument - take things to their logical conclusion and don't even let fertile couples marry until the man gets the woman pregnant. After all, if marriage is about raising children, getting married beforehand is unnecessary.
Look up menopause. And also, there are couple out there that are simply physically incapable of producing children. Will those marriages be annulled now? And what about recipients of tubal ligations, and vasectomies? Will you start ripping uo their licenses now, too? Hmmmm?
Sorry mate, but you have as much chance of impregnating a 70 year old as you do impregnating a fetus. It just isn't going to happen. So we should ban elderly marriage right? After all marriage is only for people who can procreate, right?
And what of the fact that the woman would already have gone through menopause? Scan by nought but a surrigate, and not a very good one at 70.
What if either/both of them has had their gonads, or prostate/womb removed due to cancer? There isn't much change of reproduction there.
And if you do argue for surrigacy, let me remind you that homosexuals are quite capable of donate their own gametes for the purposes of reproduction.
One dick and one vagina doesn't make babies, dumbass.
As a "Perfect design" there are damn many things that has to be in line to make a baby. If all we are here for is to make babies, shouldn't we be like lots of other animals, and ovulate after copulation? But only after the blessing of "holy matrimony", of course.
A woman born without a vagina can have a biological baby with a guy born without penis, with the help of medical science. As long as the ovary, the testicle and the uterus are working, that is.
"Two dïcks? two vaginas? Can't happen in a billion years. That's the diff. "
Actually, it can. Genetics are to the point that we can combine genetic material manually and then implant it into a serogate mother.
Hahahahaha.
OK, felling slightly better. How about this, let's let gay people marry, but have laws that prohibit retards like Tommy from reproducing?
LAUGHS when Tommy's reproductive system fails eventually due to old age and he tries to get his wife pregnant through penis/vagina sexual intercourse to make a baby. then the government takes away his marriage rights to his wife (by his logic) thus single-handedly negating his entire arguement of "only reproductive straight people having the right to marry" and revealing him to be a COMPLETE MORON.
HERES YOUR LOGIC (or lack thereof): Unless youre going to be making babies for the rest of your life from the MOMENT you marry.. until you die... than you shouldnt have the right to be married UNTIL YOU DIE.
HERES A HINT TO HELP YOU: The uterus isnt a CLOWN CAR. But if it was a car... what happens to a car after many years of use? It eventually BREAKS DOWN and DOESNT FUNCTION ANYMORE.
SO FUCK OFF.
Who put Tommy in charge of deciding who's allowed to get married?
Oh, right. Nobody. He did it himself.
Self-proclaimed authority, Tommy boy, is worth precisely dick. I can call myself the Empress of Mars... does that make it true?
Okay, first off: ARGH! OLD PEOPLE SEX! GET IT OUT OF MY MIND!
image
And second: You really don't know how the human body works, do you?
First of all, don't use "diff" spell out difference (sorry, it's a pet peeve). Secondly, have you ever heard of IVF or surrogates?
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
