 |
| |
|
|
Whaleboy
|
 |
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:34
|
|
quote:
Heterosexual marriage is a luxury, too - it's unnecessary for survival of the human race. In fact, here's an example: there are three people on a deserted island. One is a fertile female, the other is infertile, and the third is a fertile guy married to the infertile woman. Thus, if you stay "true" to marriage you won't have sex with the fertile woman and the human race will die out. Thus, straight marriage is as much a luxury as gay marriage.
|
Do you not find marriage to be irrelevant to the example however? Regardless of the issue of prolonging the human race too!! 
quote:
That's the same thing as coerced.
|
No, to coerce you bring in a "chain of command" like structure which renders a free will a puppet of your free will, and thus your responsibility. I don't see your point wrt coersion however.
quote:
I'm not even sure what you mean by this; could you clarify?
|
Sure. Assume my definition to hold. Murder is imposed killing. Intrinsic to that definition, there lies no notion of "good" or "bad", "moral" or "immoral". It is essentially amoral until you attach that property to is, which should be entertaining.
quote:
How can an action be fallacious?
|
Forgive me. I mean the proposition of that action in the given context.
JCC: 
Tried 
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Wiglaf
|
 |
Cambridge
Dec 2000
time: 23:34
|
|
quote:
Most people's children are gone from the house by that age, and this still begs the question - should the marriage be annulled after their children are gone? |
Why bother, old people do not make many babies anyway, it is no use letting granddaddy out on the prowl, you know, wink winking his way around the nightclub, BECAUSE HE'LL BE SEVENTY YEARS OLD, why bother.
quote:
Why would gay people have kids anyway? |
What's your point ? I don't understand
quote:
But the times are different today, homosexuality, to homosexuals, serves a distinct emotional purpose, |
And it also serves to lessen our evolutionary potential as a species. And that must be stopped, obviously of course, like a train out of control it threatens to kill us all, cited in example 1 in original post on page1.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
JimmyCracksCorn
|
|
Macedonia - Sovereign country north of Greece.
Dec 2002
time: 05:34
|
|
quote:
Fine, ban all marriage, what the hell do I care, if you really want to force the issue. But the absolute worse you can do is ENCOURAGE people to hookup for life with someone who can never, you know, have kids the biologically sensible way DAMN I'm right about that. |
But today isn't 500,000 years ago when we were an endangered species. Not every couple needs to have children, and in fact, we'd probably be better off (globally) if more people didn't have kids.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Kuciwalker
|
 |
of Schmooism
Feb 2001
time: 00:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wiglaf
Why bother, old people do not make many babies anyway, it is no use letting granddaddy out on the prowl, you know, wink winking his way around the nightclub, BECAUSE HE'LL BE SEVENTY YEARS OLD, why bother. |
A grandaddy could still have kids. The absolute worse you can do is ENCOURAGE people to hookup for life with someone who can never, you know, have kids the biologically sensible way DAMN I'm right about that.
quote:
What's your point ? I don't understand |
Allowing them to marry isn't going to decrease the number of children produced, cuz they AREN'T GOING TO HAVE KIDS ANYWAY.
quote:
And it also serves to lessen our evolutionary potential as a species. And that must be stopped, obviously of course, like a train out of control it threatens to kill us all, cited in example 1 in original post on page1. |
We're not going to go extinct through lack of reproduction.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
JimmyCracksCorn
|
|
Macedonia - Sovereign country north of Greece.
Dec 2002
time: 05:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wiglaf
And it also serves to lessen our evolutionary potential as a species. And that must be stopped, obviously of course, like a train out of control it threatens to kill us all, cited in example 1 in original post on page1. |
No it doesn't. As I said before, our evolutionary history was furthered by culturally evading the fact that homosexuality exists (ie, gays having straight sex to have children, and gay sex for pleasure), and if the ration of 1/10 were to somehow increase, we'd find other ways around it in much the same way as we did before.
But actually, your point is moot, since if more gays are abstaining from straight sex completely (ie, through gay marriage), the "genes" and the biological traits which encourage it, are not being passed on whatsoever. If anything, the growing acceptance of gays and things like gay marriage is starting the slow decline of homosexuality in our species, since now they don't feel obligated to bear their own children.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
mrmitchell
|
|
How many times has Wiglaf winked in this thread?
Oh God, he's got Mingitis, hasn't he?
I'm sorry. I didn't know.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wiglaf
|
|
Cambridge
Dec 2000
time: 23:34
|
|
quote:
But today isn't 500,000 years ago when we were an endangered species. Not every couple needs to have children, and in fact, we'd probably be better off (globally) if more people didn't have kids. |
If everyone were gay then we'd put an end to the practice. SO I SAY WHY WAIT BABY?
quote:
A grandaddy could still have kids. The absolute worse you can do is ENCOURAGE people to hookup for life with someone who can never, you know, have kids the biologically sensible way DAMN I'm right about that. |
Grandaddies HAVE ALRADY HAD KIDS wink wink THE BIOLOGICAL WAY, which gays cannot do, wink wink. And if you all keep shouting I will lose my appetite for toast, which I used to find tasty, before this yucky thread.
quote:
Allowing them to marry isn't going to decrease the number of children produced, cuz they AREN'T GOING TO HAVE KIDS ANYWAY. |
They would, if they were not infected by Deviant Gene 001, as I like to call it. (002 is obesity for the record)
quote:
We're not going to go extinct through lack of reproduction. |
But we will lose genetic diversity. And WHAT if we would go extinct? Then you'd change your tune? On a purely theoretical level, my tune is steadier than yours.
quote:
No it doesn't. As I said before, our evolutionary history was furthered by culturally evading the fact that homosexuality exists (ie, gays having straight sex to have children, and gay sex for pleasure), and if the ration of 1/10 were to somehow increase, we'd find other ways around it in much the same way as we did before. |
There are ways of eliminating Deviant Gene 001, which we can discuss later (medicinal, psycological quarantine, tax deduction, litigation, etc), but they sure as hell don't involve gay marriage, or social acceptance, etc.
quote:
But actually, your point is moot, since if more gays are abstaining from straight sex completely (ie, through gay marriage), the "genes" and the biological traits which encourage it, are not being passed on whatsoever |
Society aka you, Mr Jimmy Crack Corn, are doing your part to pass the gene on , so to speak.
quote:
Down with the liberal element Wiglaf!!! |
I've been voting conservative, since before you were born, please show respect, thank you, and I hold elective office, so please watch your step.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dry
|
 |
Brussels
Sep 2000
time: 06:34
|
|
Wiglaf, your little story is really funny 
Mind if I try some?
Does this "disprove" monogamy?
Scenario: a strait couple and a woman (a total of THREE people) are on an island at the same time. Suddenly everyone else in the world disappears, leaving only the three island-goers.
Question - if you are the male guy of the couple, and you are really attracted to your official female partner, and don't really like or feel anything for the other girl, what do you do?
A - Stay faithfull to your love, and only "date", WINK WINK, your love, and sexually avoid the other female,
--OR--
B - Have "relations" WINK WINK with the other female, even though you don't want to.
If you pick A, you reduce the chance of species survival through reducing the number of possible offsprings, reducing the chances of having male AND female children, but also forcing your children to mate their brother/sister.
If you pick B, you are essentially arguing that monogamy is a sexual luxury and not a biological requirement, in essence reducing the practice to deviance.
Yahtzee! I think my analysis holds water.
Let's try another one.
Does this "disprove" death penalty?
Scenario: a strait couple and a woman (a total of THREE people) are on an island at the same time. Suddenly everyone else in the world disappears, leaving only the three island-goers.
Question - if you are the male guys, and you are really attracted to your female partner, and don't really like or feel anything for the other girl. That other girl being jaleous, kills your wife. What do you do?
A - Stay faithfull to your moral values and that murderer HAS to be put to death,
--OR--
B - Don't kill the murderer (murderess?) because she's the only remaining female on earth.
If you pick A, you kill the species.
If you pick B, you are essentially arguing that death penalty is a legal luxury and not a biological requirement, in essence reducing the practice to deviance.
Yahtzee! I think my analysis holds water.
Hey, this is cool. Maybe we should make a special thread of this...
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
molly bloom
|
 |
Lundenwic
Oct 2001
time: 15:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wiglaf
Heterosexual interaction WINK WINK is where babies come from. Hence it is anything but a luxury.
|
No, it ain't.
I've already demonstrated to anyone with the intelligence of more than a grain of rice that sperm meets egg= baby.
You don't have to be heterosexual.
We have, even without the usual method of penis in vagina, a variety of ways to inseminate women with sperm.
Perhaps you could drag yourself kicking and screaming into, oh, I don't know, at least the nineteenth century, when it comes to methods of reproduction, biology, human sexuality and, well, commonsense.
Oh, and by the by- animals have been getting along fine in nature with same sex coupling.
And drop the wink wink routine.
Wasn't remotely funny the first time, and the three thousandth time it's just about as funny as finding cancer cells in a half eaten jar of jam.
'If everyone were gay then we'd put an end to the practice. '
Wiglaf
Change gay in that sentence to Wiglaf, and you would get something I suspect many people would pay good money to see.
Being gay isn't a 'practice' and if everyone were gay, who is that 'we' who'd be putting an end to it?
You've progressed from being stupid and amusing in a rather pathetic way, to just plain offensive.
Gee, who'd a thunk.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:34.
Apolyton Time is 00:34. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
14-08-2004 21:33
|