like?
like?
Val for President
Originally Posted by estis fatuus
so a woman who has had a hysterectomy doesn't need to get married because she can't produce children?
Val for President.
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/stats.htm
people who can't physcially produce a baby shouldn't be having sex (im being hyopocritical here), but given the aggressively growing number of STDs and those they infect, why not leave marriage to those who can produce and add to the population?
Good point. She needs to get divorced immediately, and made illegal to wed (sarcasim). He asked for opinions...?
gays deserve benefits, so don't get me wrong... I just think marriage should be left alone, it barely works as it is.
Last edited by estis fatuus; 04-22-2005 at 01:35 AM.
no, i was just asking. you said people who can't produce children - that would include sterile heterosexual couples.http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/stats.htm
people who can't physcially produce a baby shouldn't be having sex (im being hyopocritical here), but given the aggressively growing number of STDs and those they infect, why not leave marriage to those who can produce and add to the population?
Good point. She needs to get divorced immediately, and made illegal to wed (sarcasim). He asked for opinions...?
gays deserve benefits, so don't get me wrong... I just think marriage should be left alone, it barely works as it is.
so for example, if a couple has two children, the man gets snipped, then the couple gets divorced - that man shouldn't be able to remarry because he can no longer have children?
i'm not being a smartass, i'm just trying to understand your reasoning here, man..
Val for President.
yep. it's a new policy, meaning that everyone who is now infertile/sterile must get divorced. People who are not going to have kid will get a fine if they don't produce a baby within the first 3 years of marriage, after 5 years they are forced to divorce if they have yet to produce offspring. If after the 5 year period the couple has a child, they take it to the local DMVS and show it as proof and are allowed to remarry. Also people who get sex changes will be forced to get the letter "T" tatooed in red on their forehead. Elderly men will be forced to divorced the first time they are inable to maintain an erection, until they can maintain one at least 8 out of 10 times. Of course erection stanima will be tested bi-annually, to see if a divorce is required. Women... well they'll just be forced to divorce and retire when they begin menopause.
Last edited by estis fatuus; 04-22-2005 at 02:37 AM.
atleast you don't have to worry bout pullin out.
-----------------------------
I'm, uhh, making a U-Turn, get the FUCK outa the way!
.....................
like??
Val for President
no offspring produced?
intercourse would be purely for recreation, possibly aiding in the spread of STDs. (this applies to sterile hetrosexual couples as well)
I mean I really don't feel that strongly against it, I just think it's unnecessary. I think homosexual couples should be allowed the same benefits as a married couple, just through a different means.
I know "love" knows no boundaries, but marriage does and was established that way.
im not trying to offend anyone or come off as "conservative", that's just my opinion.
ill say it again
atleast you dont have to worry bout pullin out
-----------------------------
I'm, uhh, making a U-Turn, get the FUCK outa the way!
I never thought this thread would turn out to be funny....
heh... life is full of surprises.I never thought this thread would turn out to be funny....
Wow, you guys are REALLY passionate about the subject... Amazing. This is the same kind of emotion that swarmed over everyone last fall. Hope we can all still remember our common link here: IMPORTS!!! Thats why we are all here (On IA, not on Earth). Keep it real peeps, and will someone please think of the cars....
what about gay animals?
Leisa and S. 4 Life NM?
eh, we'll find a way around them.
what about them?
Val for President
Interesting phenomenon- those gay animals... Nothing is more "natural" than animals, right? So if there are gay animals, that MIGHT imply that being gay is indeed natural. Animals don't have any of our higher level reasoning, like "choosing" to be gay to be rebellious (as someone proposed earlier), so can anyone explain this one?
^^my point exactly
Val for President
Ok, I'll bite. Name some "gay" animals and why they are considered "gay".
Will all depend on your answer above. Some animals have both male and female organs. That IMO doesn't necessarily make them "gay". Some animals have sex and it's not for procreation purposes. That's not necessarily "gay" either.So if there are gay animals, that MIGHT imply that being gay is indeed natural. Animals don't have any of our higher level reasoning, like "choosing" to be gay to be rebellious (as someone proposed earlier), so can anyone explain this one?
If an animal acts "gay" by having intercourse with the same sex of the same species AND does so on a frequent basis (i.e. not just one time because he/she didn't know any better) AND subsequent sub species do the same (i.e. is not simply a learned behaviour they saw their big brother do once) THEN you may have a point that the species is in fact "gay" per se. I personally don't think you'll find any animal that remotely fits that kind of description. Humans on the other hand fit that description to a tee.
Also, count how many different species of "animals" there are. Now take that number divide it by the number of species that exhibit even a remote inkling of "gay" behaviour. The percentage of even remote "gay" behaviour in the wild animal kingdom I would be willing to be it so miniscule it be expressed in decimal numbers rather than whole numbers. Wanna bet? Point? The absolute overwhelming and substantial majority of all dumb and wild animals is HETEROSEXUAL and NOT homosexual. So the point of it being "natural" is ludicrous and incorrect.
Think about this: If it were "natural" to be "gay"......how would people procreate aside from science intervening? You honestly think that's how we were wired since the beginning? For science to determine our procreation and continuation of our species? That makes absolutely no common sense at all.
Sorry- have not been online in a minute.
Will all depend on your answer above. Some animals have both male and female organs. That IMO doesn't necessarily make them "gay". Some animals have sex and it's not for procreation purposes. That's not necessarily "gay" either.
You're right. Some animals, and people, are born with reproductive organs from males and females. This makes that individual a hermaprhodite. One thing most people need to realize is that sexual orientation should not be mistaken for gender confusion. Not every gay man thinks he is supposed to be a woman and vice versa. If one has sex with a member of his own gender, that would label him as gay. How would it not? I don't understand what you are using to qualify somone as gay other than that.
If an animal acts "gay" by having intercourse with the same sex of the same species AND does so on a frequent basis (i.e. not just one time because he/she didn't know any better) AND subsequent sub species do the same (i.e. is not simply a learned behaviour they saw their big brother do once) THEN you may have a point that the species is in fact "gay" per se. I personally don't think you'll find any animal that remotely fits that kind of description. Humans on the other hand fit that description to a tee.
There are a few species of animals that have sex for pleasure. Dolphins, dogs,penguins, and monkeys to name a few. I was watching the news the other day, and at a zoo in New York, there are several homosexual male penguins. These penguins, despite the presence of female penguins, these males exclusively limit sexual activity to one or another. The staff even attempted tp isolate the "gay" penguin with female and elicit some kind of respose, but there was nothing...
Also, count how many different species of "animals" there are. Now take that number divide it by the number of species that exhibit even a remote inkling of "gay" behaviour. The percentage of even remote "gay" behaviour in the wild animal kingdom I would be willing to be it so miniscule it be expressed in decimal numbers rather than whole numbers. Wanna bet? Point? The absolute overwhelming and substantial majority of all dumb and wild animals is HETEROSEXUAL and NOT homosexual. So the point of it being "natural" is ludicrous and incorrect.
Just because the majority of people are dong one thing does not make it natural. By your own statement, I would be unnatural because I am black, and minority to whites and hispanics. Or we both would be unnatural because we are men, and minority to women. Percentages and statistics can never be used to support a theory that being gay is unnatural.
Think about this: If it were "natural" to be "gay"......how would people procreate aside from science intervening? You honestly think that's how we were wired since the beginning? For science to determine our procreation and continuation of our species? That makes absolutely no common sense at all.[/QUOTE]
Ok, now you lost me. Wouldn't you say that being heterosexual is natural? Instinctual? Not learned? Yes. So if there are people out there who feel the need to have sex with members of the opposite sex, then there is no need for science to intervene. And "common sense" has no place in a discussion such as this. No one has implied that science was supposed to take over natural procreation.
The thing you might be misunderstanding and misconceptualizing is that gay people do NOT believe being gay is the ONLY way. Gay people think that there are many approaches and fits to life. One's belief that homosexuality is natural does not by any means imply that heterosexuality is unnatural.
btw- I am in the italics.
I was simply anticipating your "animal's are gay" response and saying that just because some species are hermaphrodites or in the absence of an opposite sex suitor CHOOSE to have intercourse with the same sex THAT doesn't make their species, ie. the animals, "gay" per se. In other words, if 1 horse out of a gazillion accidentally tries to hump his buddy instead of a mare, that does not signify that it's a "natural" act and thereby validate homosexuality as "natural" by default. Get it?
That shows nothing other than a handful of penguins in a zoo somewhere are acting gay. HOW would that make homosexuality a "natural" act when a gazillion other penguins don't act gay? As a matter of fact, that would actually prove the argument someone else brought up about mental disorder and it's link to this subject. Seems to me that it could just as easily be argued that those particular penguins have something "wrong" with them. Why not? It's just as plausible as any other rationalization. And to be honest, I don't even believe that myself. But it could be argued.There are a few species of animals that have sex for pleasure. Dolphins, dogs,penguins, and monkeys to name a few. I was watching the news the other day, and at a zoo in New York, there are several homosexual male penguins. These penguins, despite the presence of female penguins, these males exclusively limit sexual activity to one or another. The staff even attempted tp isolate the "gay" penguin with female and elicit some kind of respose, but there was nothing...
Just because the majority of people are dong one thing does not make it natural. By your own statement, I would be unnatural because I am black, and minority to whites and hispanics. Or we both would be unnatural because we are men, and minority to women. Percentages and statistics can never be used to support a theory that being gay is unnatural.
See, this is where it gets to the nitty gritty of what you believe and don't. If you believe that you are "born" a certain way, then your statement would make sense. IF on the other hand you believe this is a "learned or chosen" behaviour, then your statement is ridiculous. The color of your skin is not decided by you. You are born with it. It is NOT a choice. So, that must mean that you also believe that being "gay" is something you're born with? If so, how do you explain identical twins sharing the SAME DNA, yet having DIFFERENT sexual orientations? If it's genetic, that would be one strand of DNA that would SHARE that gene IF it existed, right? Explain that one.
The reason why I used numbers as part of the discussion is not to say that if the majority does it it's right. It was to show that there will NEVER be one single way for anyone to prove that homosexuality is a "natural" act because the percentage of cases where it has occured in the wild, i.e. naturally, is so infinitely miniscule that it has to be attributed to something other than "nature" because of the overwhelming numbers of identical cases of the same species where they DON'T exhibit homo behavior. Therefore, there are way too many things that it COULD be attributed to, nature NOT being one them, otherwise the majority of the species would be homo because it was predetermined in their DNA. Follow that? Same with humans.
I do believe heterosexual is the only "natural" way.[I]Ok, now you lost me. Wouldn't you say that being heterosexual is natural? Instinctual? Not learned? Yes. So if there are people out there who feel the need to have sex with members of the opposite sex, then there is no need for science to intervene. And "common sense" has no place in a discussion such as this. No one has implied that science was supposed to take over natural procreation.
Common sense does factor into a discussion like this because if we use it we can see a huge logic and pattern to our entire sexual history. Millenia have passed, players totally differ, yet the plot remains basically the same. You can only procreate via a man and a woman. Marriage has been recognized in every culture, until recent years, as a union between man and woman. Nature also shows what the "natural" way is, and it is very seldom via same sex relations. That to me shows plenty of common sense usage.
That is a lot of double talk.The thing you might be misunderstanding and misconceptualizing is that gay people do NOT believe being gay is the ONLY way. Gay people think that there are many approaches and fits to life. One's belief that homosexuality is natural does not by any means imply that heterosexuality is unnatural.
Just because a homosexual person is tolerant does not mean much as far as this discussion is concerned.
I too am aware that there are many approaches to life. Does that mean that I'm going to approve of something I see as wrong? Absolutely not. Does it mean that I'm going to commit a hate crime and beat up someone just because they are gay? Absolutely not too. I am very tolerant to all kinds of different people. Even gay people. I worked in an environment for 4.5 yrs where the owners were openly gay, half the personnel were openly gay, and even the majority of discussions were gay. There were plenty of discussions where we discussed this very issue. Openly. I respected their point of view to an extent, and they did mine to an extent. Did we agree? Hell naw! But could we co-exist? Sure. I had only one clear rule: Don't touch me. They respected that, so I didn't have an issue with working there.
My point has always been simple. I have a very strong belief about homosexuality. I don't think it's right. But that doesn't mean that I can't be tolerant and deal with people that choose to be gay. That is their perrogative. I do not ever cram down their throats MY beliefs, but be damn sure that I'm not gonna let them do that to me either. Anyone asks my opinion, I'll give it. That does not mean that I go "gay hunting" at night. That just means I have a strong belief about being on one side of the fence on this issue.
BTW, we need to teach you how to do quotes differently. It's hard to read when you just insert it into the text.
BTW2, Noone has come up with that elusive "gay" animal example and why you consider it "gay".......
here i got a study on homosexual rams...
Biology behind homosexuality in sheep, study confirms
OHSU researchers show brain anatomy, hormone production may be cause
PORTLAND, Ore. – Researchers in the Oregon Health & Science University School of Medicine have confirmed that a male sheep's preference for same-sex partners has biological underpinnings.
A study published in the February issue of the journal Endocrinology demonstrates that not only are certain groups of cells different between genders in a part of the sheep brain controlling sexual behavior, but brain anatomy and hormone production may determine whether adult rams prefer other rams over ewes.
"This particular study, along with others, strongly suggests that sexual preference is biologically determined in animals, and possibly in humans," said the study's lead author, Charles E. Roselli, Ph.D., professor in the Department of Physiology and Pharmacology, OHSU School of Medicine. "The hope is that the study of these brain differences will provide clues to the processes involved in the development and regulation of heterosexual, as well as homosexual, behavior."
The results lend credence to previous studies in humans that described anatomical differences between the brains of heterosexual men and homosexual men, as well as sexually unique versions of the same cluster of brain cells in males and females.
"Same-sex attraction is widespread across many different species." said Roselli, whose laboratory collaborated with the Department of Animal Sciences at Oregon State University and the USDA Agricultural Research Service's U.S. Sheep Experiment Station in Dubois, Idaho.
Kay Larkin, Ph.D., an OHSU electron microscopist who performed laboratory analysis for the study, said scientists now have a marker that points to whether a ram may prefer other rams over ewes.
"There's a difference in the brain that is correlated with partner preference rather than gender of the animal you're looking at," she said.
About 8 percent of domestic rams display preferences for other males as sexual partners. Scientists don't believe it's related to dominance or flock hierarchy; rather, their typical motor pattern for intercourse is merely directed at rams instead of ewes.
"They're one of the few species that have been systematically studied, so we're able to do very careful and controlled experiments on sheep," Roselli said. "We used rams that had consistently shown exclusive sexual preference for other rams when they were given a choice between rams and ewes."
The study examined 27 adult, 4-year-old sheep of mixed Western breeds reared at the U.S. Sheep Experiment Station. They included eight male sheep exhibiting a female mate preference – female-oriented rams – nine male-oriented rams and 10 ewes.
OHSU researchers discovered an irregularly shaped, densely packed cluster of nerve cells in the hypothalamus of the sheep brain, which they named the ovine sexually dimorphic nucleus or oSDN because it is a different size in rams than in ewes. The hypothalamus is the part of the brain that controls metabolic activities and reproductive functions.
The oSDN in rams that preferred females was "significantly" larger and contained more neurons than in male-oriented rams and ewes. In addition, the oSDN of the female-oriented rams expressed higher levels of aromatase, a substance that converts testosterone to estradiol so the androgen hormone can facilitate typical male sexual behaviors. Aromatase expression was no different between male-oriented rams and ewes.
The study was the first to demonstrate an association between natural variations in sexual partner preferences and brain structure in nonhuman animals.
The Endocrinology study is part of a five-year, OHSU-led effort funded through 2008 by the National Center for Research Resources, a component of the National Institutes of Health. Scientists will work to further characterize the rams' behavior and study when during development these differences arise. "We do have some evidence the nucleus is sexually dimorphic in late gestation," Roselli said.
They would also like to know whether sexual preferences can be altered by manipulating the prenatal hormone environment, such as by using drugs to prevent the actions of androgen in the fetal sheep brain.
In collaboration with geneticists at UCLA, Roselli has begun to study possible differences in gene expression between brains of male-oriented and female-oriented rams.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releas...-bbh030804.php
Val for President
and now thanks to everyone who sees this. this is my 500th post!!!! yay........ anyways, back to gay marriage!
Val for President
I'm actually impressed that you have found a good example of an animal that has gay tendencies. Props for that.
Now, based on this study it implies that there may be a hormonal imbalance between hetero and homo brains. Which to be honest, would definetly sometimes explain why there's such a predominant opposite sex tendencies, ala flamer or butch.
I think we're getting off the subject though. We're starting to get into some technical stuff about homo and hetero instead of focusing on the marriage aspect.
yea we are getting off topic. i just found that and you wanted to see an example so i posted it. but yea gay marriage...
i think we beat it to death
Val for President
sup guys!
Leisa and S. 4 Life NM?
wuddup
Val for President
You might just be the creator of the most posted in, NON-Whoreslounge thread in Ia history.
Leisa and S. 4 Life NM?
It's actually a lot more civil now than it was before. It used to get ugly when there were certain, ahem, people around IA that were pretty passionate about the subject. Nah mean???You might just be the creator of the most posted in, NON-Whoreslounge thread in Ia history.
nope i dunno what you mean... lol i just joined in march
sweet! i created something special!!!!
Val for President
lol i remember...It's actually a lot more civil now than it was before. It used to get ugly when there were certain, ahem, people around IA that were pretty passionate about the subject. Nah mean???
Damn i dont even know how many pages back I am. Too far to catch up, fuck it lol. I still think allowing gay marriage = like letting retards cross the street during busy traffic. Honestly. Thats my opinion. (lets get this heated back up jamie)
allowing gay marriage = like letting retards cross the street during busy traffic.
baashashaahahahahhahahahha
It's actually a lot less fiery around here than it used to be. I remember when this or a bible or election time debate.......wow, we got into some doosie debates. Most were actually pretty educational. I learned a lot out of those myself.
thats what debates are for.. they let everyone understand more
Val for President
so just for the record, the final answer to this thread:
GAY MARRIAGE IS WRONG AND SHOULD BE BANNED
------------------------------Thread finished------------------------------------------------------
ok your right its wrong... since you are all knowing and everything
Val for President
two ppl with a Dick is just nasty
2 chicks is acceptable.....
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
