What's new
By:

Obama vs. Beantown

Darkwing Duck said:
No, your argument has only been that heterosexual relationships are better than homosexual relationships solely because one produces offspring.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Beantown said:
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.
Click to expand...

Because a 50 year old forcing a 13 year old to marry has a "higher biological impact" than homosexual relations.
 
Darkwing Duck said:
Because a 50 year old forcing a 13 year old to marry has a "higher biological impact" than homosexual relations.
Click to expand...

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:
Marcus said:
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 then vegetables.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Darkwing Duck said:
Because a 50 year old forcing a 13 year old to marry has a "higher biological impact" than homosexual relations.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Beantown said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
moevillini said:
...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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top