Hopper
Banned
Perhaps you'd care to elaborate and state the "item" which you consider to be a "red herring," and explain why you think said "item" is a red herring, eh, Mo?
Probably not, but feel free, ya know?
Obama vs. Beantown
- Thread starter Beantown
- Start date
Perhaps you'd care to elaborate and state the "item" which you consider to be a "red herring," and explain why you think said "item" is a red herring, eh, Mo?
Probably not, but feel free, ya know?
Hopper
Banned
There are often fans at a basketball (or football, baseball, whatever) game who cheer loudly and vigorously for one team or another, but who really have very little knowledge about the rules of the game or anything else associated with it. Nuthin wrong with that. They're still fans, who are gunna root for "their team" come hell or high water. They are still free to yell at the ref that he "must be blind," even if they have no clue what a foul is. They might still have some basis for sayin it (they mighta heard the guy next to them say it, for example) but even if they don't, so what? They're cheerleaders, that all. Don't even ask them to drop their pom poms and meaningfully discuss any aspect of the game. That aint what they're there for, ya know?
If a cheerleader tells an opposing fan "Our team is better than your team," no one should try to take that as a critical evaluation of talent or anything else, and it would be a mistake to do so. They are merely stating which side they are emotionally committed to, that's all.
If a cheerleader tells an opposing fan "Our team is better than your team," no one should try to take that as a critical evaluation of talent or anything else, and it would be a mistake to do so. They are merely stating which side they are emotionally committed to, that's all.
Bean -
- Homosexual PEOPLE reproduce all the time. Therefore they ARE adding to genetic diversity. Just because the act of homosexual intercourse does not lead to reproduction does not mean that people who engage in those acts aren't also engaging in activities which lead to reproduction. Think about sperm donation and egg donations for instance.
- Heterosexual PEOPLE engage in a wide variety of sexual practices, most of which DO NOT result in reproduction.
Therefore, Bean, because many of us see "marriage" as something that establishes a relationship between PEOPLE and not as a "contract for services" (so to speak) we do not accept your arguments. Does that make sense?
If you'd like to argue that marriage is a "contract for services" or something of that nature, then that is a rather different issue.
Hopper
Banned
By the way, Mo, if you're wondering if that last post was snidely directed at you, the answer is of course "yeah, in a way, at least." But the comments I made would also apply to many others here, and moreso than to you.
I don't even think you lack "knowledge of the game," when it comes to a lot of issues brought up. It's just that you don't care to "discuss" whatever knowledge you have in most cases. While you don't seem reluctant to state your opinions or conclusions about many matters, you do generally seem very reluctant to reveal or explain just how and why you came to reach those conclusions. Fair enough, if that's the way you wanna do it.
But, when the game is "discussion" it does seem to demonstrate either: (1) a lack of understanding about how the game is played, or (2) a total lack of desire to "play the game" and a contentment with just bein a "cheerleader."
I don't even think you lack "knowledge of the game," when it comes to a lot of issues brought up. It's just that you don't care to "discuss" whatever knowledge you have in most cases. While you don't seem reluctant to state your opinions or conclusions about many matters, you do generally seem very reluctant to reveal or explain just how and why you came to reach those conclusions. Fair enough, if that's the way you wanna do it.
But, when the game is "discussion" it does seem to demonstrate either: (1) a lack of understanding about how the game is played, or (2) a total lack of desire to "play the game" and a contentment with just bein a "cheerleader."
Hopper
Banned
Personally, I pay very little attention to any arguments for OR against gay marriage that are purportedly based on biology, evolution, or any other set of supposed "scientific facts." I don't think they're revelvant, and I don't think they are much more than attempts to somehow "rationalize" one's emotional inclinations.
Hopper
Banned
To illustrate what I'm gittin at let me ask this: How do you feel about bestiality?
Honest responses might be along the lines of:
1. I think it's disgusting
2. Never gave it much thought, and have no "feelings" about it, one way or the other.
3. Love it. Try to engage in it every day
Any and all talk about science, biology, evolution, etc., as it relates to the topic is strictly secondary to one's immediate "gut feelings" about bestiality, I figure.
Honest responses might be along the lines of:
1. I think it's disgusting
2. Never gave it much thought, and have no "feelings" about it, one way or the other.
3. Love it. Try to engage in it every day
Any and all talk about science, biology, evolution, etc., as it relates to the topic is strictly secondary to one's immediate "gut feelings" about bestiality, I figure.
You mean, is that particular bisexual choosing to be atrracted to both sexes, as opposed to just one? Maybe. I'm not going to say that no indivudual, ever, could be capable of choosing their sexual orientation, whether homo-, hetero-, or bi-. There's an exception to almost every rule.
As a general rule, I have not heard bisexual saying that they chose to be bisexual, but rather that they are naturally bisexual.
IAWTP.
+1
Hopper, this may be the most well thought out, lucid, insightful statement I've ever seen you produce.
Beantown
Well-Known Member
moevillini said:
I have never said anything about "contract for services" I am merrely point out that heterosexual relations have a bigger impact on our species than homosexual relations. Moe, please answer me these following questions:
#1. Why are homosexual relations not shown physically in their sexual anatomy?( It is definatly seen in heterosexuals, which came from biological means)
#2 Why are homosexuals not the dominating relationship of our species? Why is it that they are pushing for equality rather than heterosexuals?
TheMulletMutilator
Member
Wow, Obama and I actually see eye to eye on an issue. I am glad the Stimulus is doing so well by the way.... 9.5% Unemployment. Yes!
Scorpjazz
Well-Known Member
There really can never be enough bashing of him.
Hopper
Banned
I nominate this as the best post of this thread (which may not be sayin much, but still...)! "Grovelin at my feet!" That ROCKS, sho nuff. It been a good long spell since I've come across a post with such frank self-disclosure, such devasting insight, and such indisputable demonstration that someone as just been "pwned," ya know!
Safetydan
Well-Known Member
Post less often.
Bean - I would tend to agree with you that heterosexual relationships probably have a bigger impact on our species than homosexual relations, but I really don't know for sure. Nor am I able to quantify this.
From stuff I've looked up, or that has been posted by others, or just that I've learned over the years, it seems apparent to me that in humans, as well as other animals, homosexual behavior between individuals has a role to play in society. For one thing, we really don't know how sexual behavior evolved, and recent research has shown that homosexual behaviors may have indeed played an important role in animal development.
At any rate, one thing I do believe is that the type of sexual activity that two adults engage in should not be the grounds to determine whether or not those two adults should be able to marry. The fact that your sperm can mate with your wife's egg without any assistance from anyone else is great for you and your wife.
But I don't think that fact should give you a right that two other adults who don't have that capability would be denied, simply because their bodies don't work the same way. That is the issue we are discussing here, I thought.
As to your questions, the first one makes absolutely no sense to me. Honestly, I have no idea what is meant by "homosexual relations not shown physically in their sexual anatomy" - that statement could be written in Chinese characters and I would understand it no less than I understand the English words you've written. I'm sorry, I just can't answer that because I have no clue whatsoever what you're asking.
As to the second question, I'd say it's not the dominating relationship because the majority of people are primarily heterosexual. If the majority of people were primarily homosexual in their orientation, then it would be the dominant relationship. But again, to my mind, this is not the central issue to determine whether or not two people of the same sex should have the legal right to marry.
NAOS
Well-Known Member
Are you even reading the MANY responses I've given to YOUR BLOODY THREAD?!?!?
As far as #1 is concerned, I've ALREADY mentioned that the vast majority of homosexual people actually DO reproduce in their lifetimes. If you were to do even a measly 4 hours of research on this topic which you claim to know so much about -- and on a specific point that you admit is CENTRAL to your own argument -- then you would know you are W-R-O-N-G. And there is an added irony here: because homosexual humans do often participate in procreation, they, by sheer dint of THEIR OWN DIFFERENCE, have a greater impact on DIVERSITY (at least when compared your white-bread ***).
As far as #2 is concerned: Not only do they not NEED to engage in sexual intercourse to participate in conception in today's technological climate, that doesn't mean that many of them don't/haven't. The United States has a very polarizing sexual climate for homosexuality (in relation to the rest of human history); there are/have been many cultures (e.g. Tahiti, in the past) where homosexuals both desire and do what it takes to have a baby. This is incontrovertible truth. Again, you are W-R-O-N-G. Your stance is built on the polarizing view of PURE HOMOSEXUALITY, which, simply, is idiotic and doesn't exist empirically. It's an idea in your head.
As far as #3 is concerned: Once again, I have already brought up a point against this with my statements on female genital morphology (which Gameface also talks about without referencing my post). In case my words are too fancy for you, let me put it to you this way: your penetration of a female does very little to stimulate her erogenous zones. Remember when I talked about how there was a theory that females might be built for female-to-female contact? Do you know what a ****oris is? Do you know where it is? As for males, a ***** is not a complicated tool. There doesn't seem to be any problem satisfying it. Here is more evolutionary background for you: matrilineal connections play a very important part in primate social structure and mating habits -- in other words, the powerful females control A LOT. There is empirical data that strongly suggests that sexual contact between females in this "political" triangulation is incredibly important not only to the subordinate's survival, but ESPECIALLY to her offspring. THEREFORE, female-to-female sexual would be evolutionarily advantageous. Their morphology (i.e. body structure) bears the stamp of this behavior. (This is a rushed/sloppy version of the story, but, there it is).
I don't know how I can make this clearer for you. I had (before you posted this crap above) ALREADY listed each of these arguments! DUDE, YOU ARE JUST PLAIN WRONG ABOUT THIS. I wish I knew you well enough to have sympathy for your situation; you are clearly the product of a religio-political milieu that lacks imagination and information.
Last thing, all of this which I've just typed out, is just about the social and biological data that articulate with one another. I could write another diatribe about how your politics are screwy, but I honestly don't have the time for you anymore.
Beantown
Well-Known Member
Let me know when a homosexual relationship creates life and I will agree they are equal to heterosexual relations.
Darkwing Duck
Well-Known Member
Interesting that you advocate that a 50 year old forcibly marrying a 13 year old should be more recognizable than two consenting same sex adults.
Very interesting.
Beantown
Well-Known Member
This discussion is based on two consenting adults. I thought that was a given but I guess not. Of course I do not support forcible marriage.
New_Anonymity_Old_Sage,
You seem very knowledgeable and very biased in your research/conclusions. I can't seem to put my finger on why. Maybe it's your God complex, your conclusive posturing followed by your "know what you don't know" contradiction, or your over-the-top belief in all that seems radical. I don't know. Either way, I imagine people would be more inclined to give you the time of day if you didn't come across as lop-sided and results driven. Results driven tends to make for bad science, as the flat earth crowd found.
You seem very knowledgeable and very biased in your research/conclusions. I can't seem to put my finger on why. Maybe it's your God complex, your conclusive posturing followed by your "know what you don't know" contradiction, or your over-the-top belief in all that seems radical. I don't know. Either way, I imagine people would be more inclined to give you the time of day if you didn't come across as lop-sided and results driven. Results driven tends to make for bad science, as the flat earth crowd found.
Darkwing Duck
Well-Known Member
No, your argument has only been that heterosexual relationships are better than homosexual relationships solely because one produces offspring.