>>>...men & women who cant conceive and wish to use science
>as
>>a
>>>helping hand to do what comes NATURALLY for most couples is
>>>okay ..why?? ..because its still man/woman that NATURAL
>way
>>
>>>..no matter what science tries to do A MAN CANT GET
>>>PREGNANT!!! ..TWO WOMEN cant get pregnant without a MAN
>>>involved
>>
>>so what about a woman who had to undergo an ovariectomy and
>is
>>physically incapable of bearing children, even with the help
>>of science? Should she be able to get married to her man,
>>despite her inability to get pregnant?
>
>
>i already addressed that.. try READING instead of worrying
>about what your gonna say next..
>
>
>>Since you're big on saying "you're bad at debating," here's
>a
>>clear argument: you say gay people shouldn't marry because
>>they are incapable of bearing children. (inability to bear
>>children) --> (shouldn't be able to marry). Using this
>>reasoning, you must conclude that women with ovariectomies
>>should not be able to marry either. If you believe women
>with
>>ovariectomies should be able marry, then you contradict your
>>own argument.
>
>again.. i addressed that.. MAN+WOMAN.. its very simple man..
> READ.. if science helps that which is NATURAL anyway thats
>fine..
>
>
>>So which option do you choose: (1) women with ovariectomies
>>shouldn't be able to marry; or (2) provide another argument
>as
>>to why homosexuals should not be able to marry.
>
>your showcasing your stupidity again... i provided the
>argument 3 times.. and you still dont get it.. ask me again
>if a man & woman should get help from science to conceive and
>you will get the same answer i gave you the last 3 times..
>you just dont like the answer..
>

^^^^ all this about "help with science." I clearly said a woman with an ovarectomy. Science cannot help her conceive -- she has no fucking eggs. She would have to outsource for an egg, which is no different than a lesbian couple outsourcing for a sperm.

So, given that this woman with no fucking ovaries cannot possibly have her own child, nor can she have anybody else's child because let's just suppose she had a hysterectomy too (quite common in preventative cancer surgery to just remove the entire system), SCIENCE CAN'T POSSIBLY HELP HER BEAR CHILDREN.

now, given that SHE CANNOT EVER EVER EVER have a baby, regardless of any kind of science, should she be able to get married? If you think she should be able to, then you torpedo your argument that gays should not be able to because they cannot have a baby.