What's new
By:

Obama vs. Beantown

Beantown said:
I believe marriage is very much a result of biology. The male body is clearly designed for the womans, and the woman designed for the mans. Not to mention the abilty to create offspring, develop families as well genetic lineages throughout our species history.
Click to expand...

Your first sentence here is clearly the point where you branch off from many others on this site. Marriage is purely a construction of the human mind (via judicial laws), not of natural law. If biology were a prerequisite for marriage, then those who are physically unable to produce children would not be allowed to do so.
 
chemdude1232 said:
Marriage is purely a construction of the human mind (via judicial laws), not of natural law.
Click to expand...

Yeah, Chem. This whole marriage thing is just some kinda new-fangled concoction, probably all cooked up by some damn Commie, eh? I like the ole-timey ways more better, my own damn self: Club em upside the head, drag they *** by the hair back to yo crib...boom, boom, boom, boom, know what I'm sayin?
 
Hopper said:
Yeah, Chem. This whole marriage thing is just some kinda new-fangled concoction, probably all cooked up by some damn Commie, eh? I like the ole-timey ways more better, my own damn self: Club em upside the head, drag they *** by the hair back to yo crib...boom, boom, boom, boom, know what I'm sayin?
Click to expand...

That's a bit of a sensationalist stance to infer from my post.
 
Wow. I didn't realize bean had gone all the way to the bottom of the rep charts. I guess now I know why he decided to start another thread about it.
 
Raspberry Delight said:
I bet Taint is not pleased.
Click to expand...

It's alla big-*** conspiracy by that damn Mullet and his bribed homeys, I tellya! Few days ago, I was at -818 or sumthin like that. Next day, down to a measly -567. I caint see but the last 5, but one of them said "I'm gainin on ya, and you know it!" Next damn day, only -267, da foo! This mornin, bout -80. Now, a measly -3, I can't even keep track of how fast them + hits are comin in! They tryin to make it look like Kicky's fault, cuz almost every post I make about him I instantly gitz me 20-30 + hits. It just aint no kinda fair, I tellya!
 
Last edited:
Hopper said:
It's alla big-*** conspiracy by that damn Mullet and his bribed homeys, I tellya! Few days ago, I was at -818 or sumthin like that. Next day, down to a measly -567. I caint see but the last 5, but one of them said "I'm gainin on ya, and you know it!" Next damn day, only -267, da foo! This mornin, bout -80. Now, a measly -3, I can't even keep track of how fast them + hits are comin in! They tryin to make it look like Kicky's fault, cuz almost every post I make about him I instantly gitz me 20-30 + hits. It just aint no kinda fair, I tellya!
Click to expand...

Stop being right all the time, geez.
 
New_Anonymity_Old_Sage said:
Wow! you don't say! You mean this issue is more complex than Beaner wants to make it?!?!? ....


.... Seriously, is anybody going to respond to my female genital morphology comment?

New_Anonymity_Old_Sage said:
Darwin has been most convincingly updated in the area of 'sexual selection.' Most theoretical biologists working across the field -- in laboratories and in the field -- believe that homosexuality is, as chemdude says, "a product of evolution."...

There is even a theory -- widely supported -- that says that human female genital morphology is the result of the sociocultural importance of female-to-female sexual contact. That's right.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Do you have a link?

At any rate, it seems plausible to me, based upon things I discovered when I was looking up various aspects related to this issue in the past.


Bean's entire argument, as much as he wants to couch it in terms of "biodiversity" - "evolution" and "natural selection" - rests on the premise that it takes a sperm from a male and an egg from a female to procreate. Because of that, he feels that only male & female pairings are worthy of marriage.

As far as I can tell, nobody is arguing with the statement that it takes a sperm from a male and an egg from a female to procreate. The argument comes in when Bean states his belief that this type of pairing is the only one of real importance to human life. He cannot see that anything else could possibly have any real importance or value since it is not capable of procreating in the biological sense. The fact that this type of "creation" can take place in a laboratory without any sort of sexual contact is not a factor to him, for some reason.

I think I made sense there. I know what I mean, at any rate. I apologize if my language is too imprecise for the scientists and lawyers involved in this discussion.

Oh, and for some strange reason, Bean seems to like digging himself into holes.
 
"Don't worry, *** face, I still hate your guts. <3, Trout."

Thanks, Bum! I always knowed that, deep down, ya loves my ***, eh? Now, gitcho homeboys together and helps me git the other 800 back, right quick, willya?
 
New_Anonymity_Old_Sage said:
Beantown said:
If they participate in reproduction then they are participating in HETEROSEXUAL relations. So your saying they were heterosexual then turned homosexual? This points to enviromental factors relating to homosexuality.
Click to expand...
What happened to you? What makes you so black and white about things?

(I'm guessing you're not even reading the responses of your detractors. You haven't said one substantive thing about my posts)
Click to expand...

You MUST be new! Welcome.
 
moevillini said:
I think I made sense there. I know what I mean, at any rate. I apologize if my language is too imprecise for the scientists and lawyers involved in this discussion.
Click to expand...

Well, Darlin, I aint no bottom-feeder, er nuthin (mebbe that's why) but I gitcha, eh? I aint knowin nuthin bout no chemistry, neither (well, cept for how to mix up crack, mebbe), but I not only gitcha, I witcha!

Has been from jumpstreet, homegerl. Even back in that other thread, after you said it to Beaner, I throwed this in, in yo support, remember?:

Hopper said:
Yeah, Bean, it's quite possible that evolutionary factors cause weak-***, limp-wristed males to go homo just so they don't perpetuate their kind. Ever think of that?
Click to expand...
 
moevillini said:
Do you have a link?

At any rate, it seems plausible to me, based upon things I discovered when I was looking up various aspects related to this issue in the past.


Bean's entire argument, as much as he wants to couch it in terms of "biodiversity" - "evolution" and "natural selection" - rests on the premise that it takes a sperm from a male and an egg from a female to procreate. Because of that, he feels that only male & female pairings are worthy of marriage.

As far as I can tell, nobody is arguing with the statement that it takes a sperm from a male and an egg from a female to procreate. The argument comes in when Bean states his belief that this type of pairing is the only one of real importance to human life. He cannot see that anything else could possibly have any real importance or value since it is not capable of procreating in the biological sense. The fact that this type of "creation" can take place in a laboratory without any sort of sexual contact is not a factor to him, for some reason.

I think I made sense there. I know what I mean, at any rate. I apologize if my language is too imprecise for the scientists and lawyers involved in this discussion.

Oh, and for some strange reason, Bean seems to like digging himself into holes.
Click to expand...

I can't send you to specific link. All of the theories that I referenced can be found in well-respected articles in academic journals. If you were really interested in these issues I would refer you to a book called "Diversity's Rainbow" by Joan Roughgarden. It is a book that is written for the non-specialist, by a theoretical biologist who became interested in bigger questions and interdisciplinary connections.

Roughgarden develops a very convincing theory/definition of gender. She illustrates the sexual dynamics of several species (from lizards to birds to fish to mammals) with more than 2 genders. Also, she explains the highly complex sexual politics of primate species and how same-sex contact is actually quite common. Do a slight bit of research on Bonobos (along with Chimps, they are our closest biological relatives), they are all doing sexy stuff to each other -- damn the sex of the individual.

homosexuality is NOT exceedingly common in primate species, but it is there... across the board. There are several good theories as to why, but that is a much bigger/longer conversation. The take-home message is that sexuality is always, in part, socially constructed. Suggesting otherwise is absolutely ridiculous, i.e. Beantown-like.
 
New_Anonymity_Old_Sage said:
If you were really interested in these issues I would refer you to a book called "Diversity's Rainbow" by Joan Roughgarden.
Click to expand...

"This is a scientific book—study after study is critically analyzed and well-referenced in fifty pages of chapter notes—but Roughgarden, a transgendered female, has a social agenda. By refuting Darwin’s sexual selection theory and affirming biodiversity, she seeks to end notions of male superiority and discrimination against people of diverse gender and sexual orientations."

https://www.enotes.com/evolutions-rainbow-salem/evolutions-rainbow

"Transgendered female" with an "agenda," eh? Dunno, sounds kinda scary to me.
 
Hopper said:
"This is a scientific book—study after study is critically analyzed and well-referenced in fifty pages of chapter notes—but Roughgarden, a transgendered female, has a social agenda. By refuting Darwin’s sexual selection theory and affirming biodiversity, she seeks to end notions of male superiority and discrimination against people of diverse gender and sexual orientations."

https://www.enotes.com/evolutions-rainbow-salem/evolutions-rainbow


"Transgendered female" with an "agenda," eh? Dunno, sounds kinda scary to me.
Click to expand...

This so-called "agenda" pops up more in her discussions of politics and social theory. Her biology is sound; those aspects of the book have survived the peer-review process. The book is definitely worth the read.... I'd be the first to suggest skipping political and social theory parts. If you want reading suggestions for these avenues, and you're seriously interested, then I'll think about it. The philosophy of Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari jumps straight to mind.

That said, that she is "transgendered" shouldn't scare you at all.
 
Hopper said:
Well, ya never know, eh, New? What's her "agenda?" She could be some kinda Loraine Bobbit type, know what I'm sayin?
Click to expand...

Your whole shtick is make-believe anyway, so why not include her? What do you have to lose, your make-believe blues-balls?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top