chemdude1232
Active Member
Probably the same things that heterosexuals want when they get married: the ability to proclaim that they, too, are in long-lasting, real relationships and love each other enough to spend their lives together.
So gay!!!
- Thread starter TroutBum
- Start date
Probably the same things that heterosexuals want when they get married: the ability to proclaim that they, too, are in long-lasting, real relationships and love each other enough to spend their lives together.
Hopper
Banned
Well, I guess every person might have different motives. Personally, I see no reason for anybody to get married, unless they have kids. It seems to me that the only real reason the State gets involved in "personal romances" to begin with is for the sake of the children involved and it's interest in stable, healthy conditions for children.
chemdude1232
Active Member
Ahh Hopper...plenty of heterosexual couples choose not to have kids either. Should their marriages be dissolved?
Beantown
Well-Known Member
Does that mean my wife can impregnate me?
Beantown
Well-Known Member
That doesnt change the fact that only heteorsexual relations were given the power to procreate through natural selection.
Hopper
Banned
No, Chem, but I'm just talking about State involvement really. Anybody who want to go through some religious or secular "ceremony" where they publicly declare their eternal love for each other should be free too. It's the State intervention and "entitlements" that I'm addressing.
chemdude1232
Active Member
That doesn't change the fact that natural selection also created homosexuality. It's here to stay, Bean. Why not just let them get hitched?
KatieMCR
Well-Known Member
I just have a few things to say on this. First I'm very pleased with the ruling today. I just hope that if this makes it the Supreme Court, they too will come to the same decision.
Now I'm heading up to the state capital to celebrate this decision with a few hundred other people.
Now I'm heading up to the state capital to celebrate this decision with a few hundred other people.
chemdude1232
Active Member
Gotcha, Hop. Fair enough.
Beantown
Well-Known Member
Wrong. Natural selection goes directly against homosexuality because its an evolutionary weakness at the utmost level. But I will say I am fine with civil unions. I just dont like the effort to have the relations viewed as equal to or the same as heterosexuality. Because basic biology shows they are not.
chemdude1232
Active Member
More advanced biology - biology of the brain - would disagree with your statement. Two homosexual people are fully capable of loving each other; love being a neurologically generated concept that has roots in neurochemistry, psychology, and as some say, anatomy.
Beantown
Well-Known Member
If this "brain biology" grows and turns everybody gay then we are literally talking about the end of the world. No matter how you dice it, homosexuality does not fit into evolution.
chemdude1232
Active Member
Who said anything about it "growing"? I openly admit that homosexuality does not fit into the concept of the continuance of the human race, but I highly doubt we are in any worry of a population decrease due to it spreading. And I bet the ol' globe will still be floating around the sun tomorrow morning too, so there aren't many reasons to say the demise of the planet is coming. I still don't quite get why biological implications have a strong reason to play into one's right to marry. I guess I am the type of person to think there are bigger concerns out there than how two people behave behind closed doors with their clothes off.
Bean, I think we're going to have to agree to disagree. Let me close by saying that I've enjoyed the discussion. Thanks for keeping things civil (no pun intended).
I've given this some thought, and I'm pretty sure that heterosexual sex and homosexual sex are not "total opposites." In fact, it's hard to think of something more similar to heterosexual sex than homosexual sex.
Two or more people: Check
Use of genitals: Check
Usually, but not necessarily, associated with intimacy: Check
Some level of body exposure: Check
If a dude is involved, there's some aspect of insertion into an orifice: Check
You can buy it: Check
The foreplay is pretty much the same.
The endgoal of the immediate action is the same.
I don't think these are total opposites.
I mean, if we're talking about a total opposite to sex between a man and a woman shouldn't it be like a dude watching football while a woman spends his money? That's completely different than sex, and might even lead to less sex since there will be a fight. Or more sex to make up from the fight, depending on the particulars of your relationship.
Or, in my case, reading your crackpot theories about the interaction between biology and marriage is the "total opposite" of sex because that's the biggest anti-****** I can imagine.
billyshelby
Well-Known Member
This memory lane thread won't be the same unless sharpshooter shows up. In any case, it's a good ruling and a step in the right direction.
Hopper
Banned
Well, Chem, as I've suggested, they may be looking for a little more than that and have other "needs" at stake:
"Same-sex marriage are not legal in the United States. Massachusetts and California are currently the only states that allow same-sex marriage, but these marriages are not recognized by the federal government, which means of the 1,049 benefits offered to married couples by the government, married same-sex couples can only receive a mere fraction of them. Here's a guide to getting all you can from your same-sex marriage."
https://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1241202/the_benefits_of_gay_marriage.html?cat=17
Sounds like there are at least 1,049 reasons, other than proclamations, that gays might want the right to have their pairings legally recognized and enforced, eh? Good thing they have guides to "getting all you can," I spoze.
Is it weird that I'm totally turned on?
chemdude1232
Active Member
Neurochemistry and anatomy are as scientific as you can get. That's still 2 cases for and 1 against.