Beantown
Well-Known Member
How does this change the fact that homosexuals cant have sexual intercourse?
So gay!!!
- Thread starter TroutBum
- Start date
How does this change the fact that homosexuals cant have sexual intercourse?
geez, why'd you have to drag the sheep into this?
and why "drag" - - why couldn't I think of a better word?
fiddlesticks
chemdude1232
Active Member
I'll try this again. Same wording. I'll even underline the pertinent parts for you.
Fast forward to today. "Sexual intercourse" means vaginal intercourse, anal intercourse, fellatio or cunnilingus between persons regardless of sex (according to some states' Judicial Branches). Originally this term applied to heterosexuals only. Although homosexuals have sexual organs and the capacity to love just as much as heterosexuals, their sexual acts were deemed "mimicking" by Bean.
Bean, words, ideas, and concepts evolve. Without this evolution of semantics, we'd all be in a much sorrier state of being.
Stickler
Well-Known Member
I haven't read a word of this thread. But I spent some time yesterday reading about the California ruling, and I just want to say, regardless of whatever arguments and discussions have gone on in this thread -- completely irrespective of any conversation taking place on Jazzfanz -- that I count this as a great event. I'm thrilled. I hope it sticks. And I support gay marriage. Good work, you Evil Activist Judge, you. Good work.
I see a lot of people here wanting opponents of gay marriage to prove how it will negatively effect society or hetero marriage. Isn't it proponents of gay marriage that should be proving that it won't? After all, it is they that want to change the status quo. Shouldn't the burden of proof be on them to show that gay marriage is harmless? I have yet to see a single person that can actually prove gay marriage is harmless. The typical answer to my question usually sounds like, "Your just a stupid bigot!"
Beantown
Well-Known Member
Sexual intercourse is through ***** and vaginal contact. This is a biological process brought by evolution. All other forms are not biological processes but are just meant to mimic the feal of this heterosexual process.
chemdude1232
Active Member
Sexual intercourse is through vaginal contact according to you perhaps. Not the gov't. We all play under their judicial laws, not yours. Sorry. I guess this diseased aberration known as "homosexuality" will just have to go on being the serious and egregious affront that you think it is.
I'm not being argumentative or confrontational with this question, but I am curious to know: how would you handle it if one of your kids was gay? Would you be this unforgiving to them?
That's why we call HIM BeanClown. We call YOU butt ****.
So, if a gay man and a lesbian get together and insert tab a into slot b, are they mimicking the heterosexual process?
C l u t c H 385
Banned
Setting frameworks (conceptual or not) and the sexuality of animals aside, I want to bring light to the topic originally posted about: essentially, should homosexuals be allowed to marry? That is, can the heterosexual establishment find it in their hearts to allow the homosexual establishment the usage of a single, solitary word: marriage.
This topic has had a lot of traffic today and there have been many arguments made for and against gay marriage. I voiced my two cents, got into a relatively tense back-and-forth with dissenting opinions (mainly championed by Bean), and watched some other members give their opinions.
I've spent the intervening time reading the posts and thinking about gay marriage and have come to this conclusion: being heterosexual, it is easy for us to sit in our ivory towers and besmirch the notion of gay marriage. We simply lack the proper frame of reference to truly denounce (what I understand to be) the true and honest love two homosexuals can have for each other. Can you honestly say you'd be against gay marriage if you yourself were gay? Answer honestly, please. Again, I raise one of my original questions (which no one really ever bothered to answer)...who are we to deny homosexuals access to something as basic as the word "marriage?" How truly petty can we be that it can infuriate us to that extent? Finally, who cares what two consenting adults do behind closed doors with their clothes off; and does it really actually matter if they say they are married or not?
Bean raised the concern that biology is a trump card against allowing marriage to apply to homosexuals. "They cannot procreate, ergo they cannot enter into marriage," is a paraphrasing of his message. Isn't it a sign of intelligence to be willing to reexamine the definition of a word and evolve its meaning to be just a bit less elitist? In 1856, the Supreme Court of the US of A ruled that black people were not considered "human beings" if they were slaves. That notion sounds ludicrous, doesn't it? Well get this: we evolved the word "human" to finally include African Americans. We made progress on that day. And we made more progress today by allowing gay marriage.
Thus ends my soapbox on the issue. I promise
that **** was so gay.
KM32MVP
Well-Known Member
I think this would be called mimicking the latest Jenna Haze video.
Beantown
Well-Known Member
I dont care if people are gay. But dont lie to me and tell me these relations are the same or equal to heterosexuals. Its just flat out false. Let them have civil unions. But the term marriage to me has biological meaning. I think we need to recognize that only heterosexual relations have the power to procreate and the more respect we have for that power as a socioty the better.
chemdude1232
Active Member
I'm not lying to anyone. On the contrary, I'm spewing truth all over the place here - gays are soon going to be allowed to use your blessed word of "marriage" and there's not a damn thing you can do about it (unless you happen to moonlight as a Supreme Court judge, which by the looks of things, is where this is headed).
Yes, procreation is great. It's a miracle. It's what has allowed us to assail each other with our immovable opinions on this matter. Respecting procreation is surely a good thing (this raises a question about your stance on birth control, by the by), but societally I suppose I don't envision the same erosion of our foundation as you do from this ruling. I'll reiterate: as a society, I'm sure there are more important things to be concerned with.
Yes, procreation is great. It's a miracle. It's what has allowed us to assail each other with our immovable opinions on this matter. Respecting procreation is surely a good thing (this raises a question about your stance on birth control, by the by), but societally I suppose I don't envision the same erosion of our foundation as you do from this ruling. I'll reiterate: as a society, I'm sure there are more important things to be concerned with.
Beantown
Well-Known Member
Again, gay marrriage will probably happen nationwide in my lifetime. That doesnt mean I have to agree with it. Just like I dont agree with alot of things the government does. But life goes on.
KM32MVP
Well-Known Member
Since when does the ability to procreate become a prerequisite for marriage? Barren women cant get married either then? Sterile men?
And seriously, a "biological" term? Nothing about marriage is biological by nature. Ceremonies have biological framework, nor do marriage certificates, crappy music, presence of cheap wine or poorly designed bridesmaid dresses.
You can def. say marriage is a religous term, you can say its a civil term... buuuut biological?
Beantown
Well-Known Member
Specific men and women health issues doesnt change the fact that only heterosexual relations were selected for the process of sexual intercourse and the ability to procreate.
JJ Rage
Active Member
Marriage is one part a gesture of love and one part a legal institution. It has nothing to do biology or procreation or religion. YOUR definition of marriage means nothing. Marriage isn't some abstract term open to interpretation.
It's hilarious to see you touting biology and evolution though. Funny how "science" is suddenly the argumental backbone of a movement that is based almost entirely within religious fundamentalism.
Beantown
Well-Known Member
Marriage has always been a term associated with family. Biologically this means a "family" is offsrping that carries genetic and DNA from yourself and can be continued through generations. Only heterosexual couples can perform such an act. Which is why the term marriage does not make sense to use for a homosexual relation.