Beantown
Well-Known Member
Yes because heterosexual relations have higher biological impact in our species. I dont see how this makes it ok for a 50 year old to force a 13 year old to marry. Im a little lost.
Obama vs. Beantown
- Thread starter Beantown
- Start date
Yes because heterosexual relations have higher biological impact in our species. I dont see how this makes it ok for a 50 year old to force a 13 year old to marry. Im a little lost.
Darkwing Duck
Well-Known Member
Because a 50 year old forcing a 13 year old to marry has a "higher biological impact" than homosexual relations.
Why are you arguing with Bean on his position regarding 50/13 sexual relations? He's already told you how he feels about them. That's like me saying I don't like to eat liver and then you sit and argue with me that I really do like it because I said somewhere I'd rather eat meat than vegetables.
Last edited:
Darkwing Duck
Well-Known Member
Because his argument against same sex marriage is solely based on his interpretation of biological function, creating offspring versus not creating offspring. If that truly is his position, then he must think that 50/13 is "better." If he doesn't think 50/13 is the same as consenting adults, then he MUST believe social factors are critical in what constitutes marriage, breaking apart what he's been arguing about, that social factors are negligible to the "biologic importance" of it all.
Beantown
Well-Known Member
Yes that relationship would have more biological impact. But that doesnt mean the relationship should ever happen because forcible marriage is illegal, as is the age of the 13 year old. You are trying to draw a connection that does not exist.
Darkwing Duck
Well-Known Member
Why is it illegal?
I was just going to post this and wait for a response, but I'll go ahead and answer. It's illegal (in this country, anyway) because from a social standpoint, it causes irreparable harm to a party. Homosexual marriage has no irreparable harm to a party. Biology DOES NOT enter into whether a marriage is legal or illegal. It is a societal matter. If it WAS NOT a social matter, 50/13 would exist an be legal.
Bean (and anyone else)
You have said that you support "civil unions" for partners of the same sex. Speaking strictly in the legal sense as far as property rights, tax laws, family laws and whatever other areas of statute may be involved, does this mean that you would support a "civil union" that is 100% the equal to what is now called "marriage" - in other words, if the word "marriage" were taken out of the equation and replaced with "civil union" would you be in favor of this type of relationship for both same and different sex partners?
I'm just trying to figure out where it is that the line in the sand is drawn on this issue for you.
You have said that you support "civil unions" for partners of the same sex. Speaking strictly in the legal sense as far as property rights, tax laws, family laws and whatever other areas of statute may be involved, does this mean that you would support a "civil union" that is 100% the equal to what is now called "marriage" - in other words, if the word "marriage" were taken out of the equation and replaced with "civil union" would you be in favor of this type of relationship for both same and different sex partners?
I'm just trying to figure out where it is that the line in the sand is drawn on this issue for you.
Hopper
Banned
Mo, I gotta take back part of what I done said about you not wanting to play the "discussion" game and contenting yourself with bein a "cheerleader," eh? With Beaner, at least, you're playin the game--rather well, too, I might add.
C l u t c H 385
Banned
ewww, no wonder Darkwing Duck uses a cartoon persona...
Hopper
Banned
That's Sharpie from the old board, eh, Clutch? Remember him? Sharpshooter?
NAOS
Well-Known Member
I'm done trying to breakthru with this moran.
If the event of conception was the only thing that mattered... SIMPLY CONCEIVING IN THE WILD... then you might have a small point. Of course, that is only one part of the process of existing and passing on genes. Beanturd refuses to acknowledge my comments, so I'm done. Not one substantive remark from him. Like a brick wall.
If the event of conception was the only thing that mattered... SIMPLY CONCEIVING IN THE WILD... then you might have a small point. Of course, that is only one part of the process of existing and passing on genes. Beanturd refuses to acknowledge my comments, so I'm done. Not one substantive remark from him. Like a brick wall.
NAOS
Well-Known Member
what exactly is my bias? maybe that sexuality is both biologically and socially constructed? If acknowledging the social dimensions in the construction of behavior and morphology is a bias then I guess you got me pegged. Good one.
Trust me, I don't have a God complex... that has been sorted out relatively well for me: there is no transcendental God.
In the course of this conversation we have not waded into the waters of things that I haven't studied pretty thoroughly... so I'm not sure what contradiction you are seeing.
Flat earth people were using bad results. If you don't want me to use results maybe I can claim to have received a divination... better?
I'll file your claim under the VAGUE-AND-SOFT critiques section of my professional development folder.
The problem, Sage - Dark - etc., is two-fold:
1. Beantown is clearly locked into his position on this issue. You are beating a dead horse. He is not going to change his mind, and the acknowledgment of correctness that you seek will never come. Your work has zero payoff potential.
2. The argument is mostly just a tangent of the original discussion. All of the back and forth about whether or not homosexuals can or will reproduce, or whether homosexual relationships impact evolution, is off point. Ultimately, that doesn't matter. The main thrust of Bean's assertion is, if I am understanding it correctly, that heterosexual relationships are special because, biologically speaking, they are the foundation for propagation of almost every species. All of the peripheral arguing is, IMO, unimportant. And even if Bean is WAY off the mark regarding homosexual relationships, it doesn't automatically nullify his entire case. If he believes heterosexual relationships are special, that's all he needs. No matter how much science you throw at it, there is no way of quantifying "specialness". And ultimately, how important is one random guy's opinion to you?
That's my .02
1. Beantown is clearly locked into his position on this issue. You are beating a dead horse. He is not going to change his mind, and the acknowledgment of correctness that you seek will never come. Your work has zero payoff potential.
2. The argument is mostly just a tangent of the original discussion. All of the back and forth about whether or not homosexuals can or will reproduce, or whether homosexual relationships impact evolution, is off point. Ultimately, that doesn't matter. The main thrust of Bean's assertion is, if I am understanding it correctly, that heterosexual relationships are special because, biologically speaking, they are the foundation for propagation of almost every species. All of the peripheral arguing is, IMO, unimportant. And even if Bean is WAY off the mark regarding homosexual relationships, it doesn't automatically nullify his entire case. If he believes heterosexual relationships are special, that's all he needs. No matter how much science you throw at it, there is no way of quantifying "specialness". And ultimately, how important is one random guy's opinion to you?
That's my .02
Hopper
Banned
You're makin sum good points, here, Bronc, but I think ya might be a little off on that "zero payoff" bidnizz, eh? Everybuddy and his brutha round this here joint wanna takes they shot at Beaner because they figure:
1. The crowd don't like Beaner, and will approve of they abuse of him, and
2. He's easy pickins, and they aint likely to git they sorry *** whupped.
Ya thinks dat aint no payoff? Pilin on, it ROCKS, doncha knowz!?
TheItinerantSon
Well-Known Member
hopper.
if i paid you $50 will you leave the board for 6 months?
i hate you.
i hope you get a computer virus.
if i paid you $50 will you leave the board for 6 months?
i hate you.
i hope you get a computer virus.
C l u t c H 385
Banned
Makes sense that Darkwing Duck would attract more kiddies for him than "Sharpshooter." Perv, I tell ya.
Bronco makes some good points. Though most of this has been hashed and rehashed numerous times. But Bean has stated multiple times that he does support the idea of civil unions for partners of the same sex, hence my question - and it's not just for Bean, but for anybody who thinks "civil unions" are OK but "marriages" aren't.
and it wasn't me Hopper, I'd reached my limit early in the day