What's new
By:

So gay!!!

Beantown said:
Offsrping is a child produced by a male and a female.

Family is a combination of parents and children and can include extended relatives.
Click to expand...

Okay, so if a marriage is withouth children/offspring, what then? If a single mom who never marries has and raises children, is that not still a family? See, these things are not always associated with "marriage".

Gay people can adopt children and they can call themselves a family. That meets the criteria of your marriage association, correct?
 
KrazeeEyezKilla said:
Beanclown,

Do you believe people are actually gay or they're just doing it because it's trendy? In addition if you believe certain people actually are gay, do you think they were born that way?
Click to expand...

I believe gays are that way because of environmental factors. It worries me that alot of gay people have been sexually molested as children. I also believe that homosexuals can sometimes just have gender disorder issues. You see this in gay men that are extrememly feminine or females that are "dykes". But I dont deny they are attracted to the same sex. But I understand that homosexuality does not have any biological or evolutionary function. I am for civil unions so they have equal rights. But I am more concered with respecting the process of procreation.
 
YB85 said:
Okay, so if a marriage is withouth children/offspring, what then? If a single mom who never marries has and raises children, is that not still a family? See, these things are not always associated with "marriage".

Gay people can adopt children and they can call themselves a family. That meets the criteria of your marriage association, correct?
Click to expand...

Its not about producing offspring, its about heterosexuality being the only relation selected to do so. People's personal choices dont change scientific facts.
 
Beantown said:
Its not about producing offspring, its about heterosexuality being the only relation selected to do so. People's personal choices dont change scientific facts.
Click to expand...

No, you're arguing two different things. Your statement:

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.
Click to expand...

You associate "marriage" with "offspring" and "family", neither of which really matter when it comes to "marriage". And even if it does, a homosexual "marriage" can meet the "offspring" and "family" tests with little problem, via adoption.
 
YB85 said:
You associate "marriage" with "offspring" and "family", neither of which really matter when it comes to "marriage". And even if it does, a homosexual "marriage" can meet the "offspring" and "family" tests with little problem, via adoption.
Click to expand...

Adoption doesnt change that fact that only heterosexuality has biological and evolutionary components.
 
One Brow said:
You stated, "My point is homosexuals cannot have sexual intercourse through direct sexual organ contact." This is obviously false, and I am not interested in expaining the obvious to you. If you can not visualize how two male homosexuals can have direct sexual organ contact, nor how two female homosexual can have direct direct sexual organ contact, I can only say you have severly limited visualization facilities.
Click to expand...

Again, homosexuals cant have sexual intercourse, they can only mimic sexual intercourse. The mans sex organ works with a female sex organ and vice versa. This is not true for homosexuals.
 
Beantown said:
Again, homosexuals cant have sexual intercourse, they can only mimic sexual intercourse. The mans sex organ works with a female sex organ and vice versa. This is not true for homosexuals.
Click to expand...

You probably don't always buy name-brand tylenol, yet I'd be willing to bet you call the knock-off "tylenol" nonetheless. That is, the medicine you buy can mimic the tylenol name and function, but it is not tylenol, yet you and I would still call it "tylenol."
 
KM32MVP said:
....and heterosexuality having biological and evolutionary components doesnt have anything to do with marriage.
Click to expand...

In your opinon. I base social and environmental choices and opinions based on principles of our natural world and its functions. I believe marriage is a social concept based on basic natural biology.
 
Beantown said:
Again, homosexuals cant have sexual intercourse, they can only mimic sexual intercourse. The mans sex organ works with a female sex organ and vice versa. This is not true for homosexuals.
Click to expand...

This "Champion of Evolution and Biology" shtick is sophomoric. People are not going to stop ****ing because homosexuals are allowed to be married or have a civil union. You are playing this game because it is a lot easier (in your mind) to defend than the underlying reason, which is the religious side of it. Its easier to invoke the name of science than it is to say that some guy that humans made up and wrote about in a book thousands of years ago said it is naughty, so it should be against the law. Its not up to the gov't to decide what is morale and make it lawful. Its up to us to decide, as individuals, and its the government's job to decide what is infringing on our rights as individuals and protect those civil liberties. That's what happened here. A judge decided that the law, though passed, violated a specific group of individual's rights, as set down by the 14th amendment.
 
Beantown said:
In your opinon. I base social and environmental choices and opinions based on principles of our natural world and its functions. I believe marriage is a social concept based on basic natural biology.
Click to expand...

As I said above, which you completely ignored, humans are not subject to all the laws of natural biology. Our heightened state of consciousness allows us to live outside of most of the laws that animals are subject to.
 
chemdude1232 said:
You probably don't always buy name-brand tylenol, yet I'd be willing to bet you call the knock-off "tylenol" nonetheless. That is, the medicine you buy can mimic the tylenol name and function, but it is not tylenol, yet you and I would still call it "tylenol."
Click to expand...

Biological principles dont work that way. But you can twist science or ignore it if it makes you feel better.
 
Beantown said:
In your opinon. I base social and environmental choices and opinions based on principles of our natural world and its functions. I believe marriage is a social concept based on basic natural biology.
Click to expand...

So, marriage for you is based on the "principals of our natural world." Meaning the ability to procreate?
 
prodigal punk said:
This "Champion of Evolution and Biology" shtick is sophomoric. People are not going to stop ****ing because homosexuals are allowed to be married or have a civil union. You are playing this game because it is a lot easier (in your mind) to defend than the underlying reason, which is the religious side of it. Its easier to invoke the name of science than it is to say that some guy that humans made up and wrote about in a book thousands of years ago said it is naughty, so it should be against the law. Its not up to the gov't to decide what is morale and make it lawful. Its up to us to decide, as individuals, and its the government's job to decide what is infringing on our rights as individuals and protect those civil liberties. That's what happened here. A judge decided that the law, though passed, violated a specific group of individual's rights, as set down by the 14th amendment.
Click to expand...

But a judge cannot change basic biological facts no matter what the decision.
 
I've never seen such a heroic effort to teach someone 2 and 2 equals 4. At some point you have to rub the temples on your fivehead and move on. But it is fun to read.
 
Beantown said:
Again, homosexuals cant have sexual intercourse, they can only mimic sexual intercourse. The mans sex organ works with a female sex organ and vice versa. This is not true for homosexuals.
Click to expand...

I expect you to change your positions when you can't defend them.

So, you define sexual intercourse as being male/female genital contact, and then say two males or two females can't experience male/female contact. How completely circular and irrelevant.
 
billyshelby said:
I've never seen such a heroic effort to teach someone 2 and 2 equals 4. At some point you have to rub the temples on your fivehead and move on. But it is fun to read.
Click to expand...

I know, the more they keep talking the more they think biology will change for them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top