![]() |
#201 |
Blue Crack Supplier
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 34,032
Local Time: 10:27 PM
|
i don't feel belittled at all ... quite the opposite ... ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#202 |
Blue Crack Supplier
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,555
Local Time: 07:27 PM
|
heh heh...
__________________ |
![]() |
![]() |
#203 | |
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 07:27 PM
|
Quote:
Terms like “best” and “better” in this case, are at their core – value judgments. When discussing these “couples” as heterosexual vs. homosexual – part of the discussion is trying to determine which has more “value” to society, or if it is even possible that one could have more value than the other couple. Furthermore, if one is demonstrated to have more value – should society encourage that one, while discouraging the other? I agree that it would be impossible for heterosexual couples to have more value to society if there is no actual difference between them and homosexual couples. Yet, there is a difference, a biological difference - as pointed out above. And this is not an insignificant difference (like hair color, eye color, skin color), in strictly biological terms, as it turns out that natural reproduction can be the result of the male/female union – and not the other unions. So, if everything else is the same between the heterosexual couples and homosexual couples – the one key biological difference is that continuation of the species is naturally possible through one union, and not the other. So, before modern science made it possible for non-heterosexual partners to conceive and bear children – heterosexuality was the only possible way for the species to survive. Before modern science, it seems logical that heterosexuality had more “biological value” to human beings by means of the ability to continue life. Will you concede this point? |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#204 |
Blue Crack Supplier
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30,343
Local Time: 09:27 PM
|
But even then, before modern science, were couples required to have children to marry?
I think you know the answer. |
![]() |
![]() |
#205 |
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 07:27 PM
|
I was simply addressing the question "what is different" between heterosexual couples and homosexual couples on a purely biological level - and whether or not heterosexual unions had more biological value than homosexual unions to the species before modern science.
|
![]() |
![]() |
#206 | |
Self-righteous bullshitter
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Soviet Canuckistan — Socialist paradise
Posts: 16,900
Local Time: 11:27 PM
|
Quote:
How will allowing gay marriage for 5% of the population affect that, exactly? The only thing I can think of, is that you think that homosexuality is a choice rather than genetic, and that by allowing gay marriage it will do two things: encourage other adults to become homosexual; and encourage children who come from same gender relationships to think homosexuality is "normal" and encourage them to engage in the homosexual "lifestyle".
__________________
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#207 | |||
Blue Crack Supplier
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 34,032
Local Time: 10:27 PM
|
Quote:
so now you're predicating marriage upon having offspring that is 50% each of the partners? so all those adopted kids don't count? those couples who choose to remain childless? those couples who marry much later in life beyond their years of fertility? gay people can have children that are biologically related to one partner, why is that child not entitled to have his parents married? and in a world where we're often bemoaning the amount of children who need to be adopted, isn't there a huge "value" in protecting a couple who potentially could adopt these excess children? isn't there a "value" in providing stability for gay people who, and i haven't even brought this up yet, might actually benefit tremendously from having structure, meaning, and purpose to their romantic lives the way that straight people have structure, meaning, and purpose and a goal? Quote:
i think i've stated this point before, and i think the most important point is that we understand marriage to be a far more complex thing than a baby making factor. in fact, AEON, you've outlined a good argument for polygamy if we're going to assign "value" to the ability of people to continue life. one man can impregnate many women at once, so we're all better off as a species if one man keeps his 5 wives pregnant. further, we better do away with age-of-consent laws, because a woman only has a limited time to produce children, and risk of birth defects go up once she turns 35. so better get her breeding the day after she has her first period so that we can maximize her reproductive potential. i think we'd both agree that this is all absurd, and that people are more complex than their ability to reproduce, and that's why marriage is far more complex. i think that the idea behind marriage is absolutely tied to reproduction, but more as a way of making a man stay and provide for a woman with a child. it has more to do with civilizing heterosexual men than it's about sanctifying the actual heterosexual union that produces a child. as our understanding of marriage has evolved, so should the institution evolve. i'll point back to that Thomas Jefferson quote i posted last sunday: Quote:
|
|||
![]() |
![]() |
#208 |
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Berlin
Posts: 6,745
Local Time: 03:27 AM
|
I think that sentence speaks to the apparent view that both homosexuality and heterosexuality are a choice. For, if both weren't a choice, society, or the government, could never encourage or discourage either one. Except for, maybe, making homosexuals hide their true identity and agree into heterosexual relationships. Which, very sadly, is the case in reality all too often.
|
![]() |
![]() |
#209 |
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,685
Local Time: 08:27 PM
|
If we're to follow the "continuation of th species" logic, then infertile couples should also not be allowed to marry, since they cannot biologically reproduce.
Nevermind the fact that your argument contains it's own rebuttal (modern science), ignores reality (child rearing is not a requirement of marriage and there are many more things in marriage that are beneficial to society than merely procreation) and again dodges the real question. |
![]() |
![]() |
#210 | |
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 07:27 PM
|
Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#211 |
Blue Crack Supplier
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 34,032
Local Time: 10:27 PM
|
dp.
|
![]() |
![]() |
#212 |
Blue Crack Supplier
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 34,032
Local Time: 10:27 PM
|
i do think that AEON is correct -- marriage was about having children, not so much as a celebration of the sacredness of the heterosexual act (that was grafted onto it by religion in order to use notions of God to scare people), but to keep men from impregnating lots of women.
not much holds a society back more than having a surfeit of children that cannot be provided for. |
![]() |
![]() |
#213 | |||
Self-righteous bullshitter
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Soviet Canuckistan — Socialist paradise
Posts: 16,900
Local Time: 11:27 PM
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
And, if so, do you think that by allowing gay marriage, it would encourage others, such as myself, to say 'hey, gays can marry now! Why don't I find myself a nice man to settle down with?'"
__________________
|
|||
![]() |
![]() |
#214 |
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 07:27 PM
|
Again, the only question I was addressing above was that of difference. I used Irvine's accepted definition of a male and female to demonstrate that there is at least a biological difference between heterosexual couples and homosexual couples. For some reason, it seems difficult for all of us to get past this point before continuing the discussion.
|
![]() |
![]() |
#215 | ||
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 07:27 PM
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
![]() |
![]() |
#216 | |
Self-righteous bullshitter
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Soviet Canuckistan — Socialist paradise
Posts: 16,900
Local Time: 11:27 PM
|
Quote:
Please answer the question.
__________________
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#217 |
Blue Crack Supplier
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 34,032
Local Time: 10:27 PM
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#218 |
The Fly
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 259
Local Time: 06:27 PM
|
We are a modern society. The "continuation of the species" argument really doesn't apply anymore. We have advanced medicine, technology, laws, governments, etc. We no longer follow those basic rules regarding reproduction and survival. It's not like we're not barbarians on the verge of extinction or anything like that.
Therefore, our focus is now more on rights and equality, rather than "survival of the species," because, face it, our survival as a race by reproduction really isn't much of a relevant issue anymore. In fact, it's probably the opposite now that we're stuck with overpopulation. Anyways, even if it were to be somewhat of an issue, gay marriage is not something that is too huge on scale. Even if our "survival as a species" was threatened by reproduction rates, the gay population wouldn't make much of a difference. And as someone before pointed out, gay couples may be beneficial in that sense by adopting and raising children (and no, the idea that that is somehow detrimental to the children is only an assumption). |
![]() |
![]() |
#219 |
Blue Crack Supplier
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 34,032
Local Time: 10:27 PM
|
AEON/INDY/whoever -- why do you think there are gay people?
|
![]() |
![]() |
#220 |
Blue Crack Supplier
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,232
Local Time: 09:27 PM
|
Which allows more choice for churches to marry who they want, which honestly negates any real meaning or importance you ever gave to any previous arguments you had against. For now you're basically saying well if I can't be the only ones to reap such benefits then no one can. Plus you open a whole new set up legal headaches for couples and families.
__________________ |
![]() |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Random Risque U2 Pictures (PT II) | FallingStar | PLEBA Archive | 147 | 07-28-2003 03:01 PM |
MERGED --> When will Cleveland II be? + Rock Hall Celebration (Spring) | CMM | Interference Gatherings | 80 | 04-14-2003 10:02 PM |
Getcher Classical on! Psst...Dieman. | Johnny Swallow | Lemonade Stand Archive | 8 | 03-07-2003 04:53 PM |
the Europe photos pt. II (including interferencers!!!) | sulawesigirl4 | Lemonade Stand Archive | 61 | 01-05-2003 03:29 PM |
When hormones go bad Pt. II: MacPhisto | WildHonee | PLEBA Archive | 9 | 11-02-2001 07:36 PM |