Gay Marriage

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Agrajag@23 February 2004 - 15:58
With regard to the procreation thing, I would suggest that any female who had gone through childbirth once would not chose to go through it again. Particularly as there are many ways to ensure no more childbirth can occur.

---

An interesting point, but flawed.

Humans have a remarkably poor memory of pain.
We may remember that something hurt like a sumbitch, but trying to recall the specifics is very difficult.
I think it may be a defence mechanism.

Although I have never given birth ( obviously) I have suffered a few major traumas.
I remember wishing I could die when my lung collapsed.
But for the life of me, I can't be specific about the nuances and varieties of the pain.

Probably the massive wash of pherenomes and hormones released at birth erases the woman's memory of the physical trauma.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Busyman+24 February 2004 - 00:07--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Busyman @ 24 February 2004 - 00:07)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Agrajag@23 February 2004 - 19:58
With regard to the procreation thing, I would suggest that any female who had gone through childbirth once would not chose to go through it again. Particularly as there are many ways to ensure no more childbirth can occur.

Why then do people have more than one child. The love making can be organised with absolutely no chance of a child being made. There must be an urge, at least in some women, to procreate. This must also outweigh the desire not to go through the process of giving birth.

---

There is the urge to raise kids. They are cute.
Furthermore it is fascinating seeing a little you.
The kid has your eyes and nose. Sometimes it&#39;s a spitting image of you.

There are some people that adopt rather than go through childbirth, some of them homosexual I might add. [/b][/quote]
That is entirely specious and you know it. The urge is to make them and raise them. There are way too many orphans for it just to be the "nurturing" instinct. If your scenario were correct then the childbirth part (after the first) would be entirely unnecessary. Women would simply adopt more children to raise.

I particularly liked the part about some homosexuals choosing to adopt, rather than go through child birth. I can only assume you speak of the daughters of Lesbos, unless your genetic manipulation has reached staggering heights.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by clocker+24 February 2004 - 00:32--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker @ 24 February 2004 - 00:32)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Agrajag@23 February 2004 - 15:58
With regard to the procreation thing, I would suggest that any female who had gone through childbirth once would not chose to go through it again. Particularly as there are many ways to ensure no more childbirth can occur.

---

An interesting point, but flawed.

Humans have a remarkably poor memory of pain.
We may remember that something hurt like a sumbitch, but trying to recall the specifics is very difficult.
I think it may be a defence mechanism.

Although I have never given birth ( obviously) I have suffered a few major traumas.
I remember wishing I could die when my lung collapsed.
But for the life of me, I can&#39;t be specific about the nuances and varieties of the pain.

Probably the massive wash of pherenomes and hormones released at birth erases the woman&#39;s memory of the physical trauma. [/b][/quote]
The point was as a direct response to the contention that love making was purely a physical thing. If that were the case then women could ensure that childbirth would never happen again. No matter how nebulous the memory of the pain was. The fact is that large numbers do not, they chose to go through it again. They choose to have more children in spite of what it will mean for them. That surely is not a simple pleasure thing.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Agrajag+23 February 2004 - 20:35--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Agrajag &#064; 23 February 2004 - 20:35)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Busyman@24 February 2004 - 00:07
<!--QuoteBegin-Agrajag

---

Quote:

---

@23 February 2004 - 19:58
With regard to the procreation thing, I would suggest that any female who had gone through childbirth once would not chose to go through it again. Particularly as there are many ways to ensure no more childbirth can occur.

Why then do people have more than one child. The love making can be organised with absolutely no chance of a child being made. There must be an urge, at least in some women, to procreate. This must also outweigh the desire not to go through the process of giving birth.

---

There is the urge to raise kids. They are cute.
Furthermore it is fascinating seeing a little you.
The kid has your eyes and nose. Sometimes it&#39;s a spitting image of you.

There are some people that adopt rather than go through childbirth, some of them homosexual I might add.

---

That is entirely specious and you know it. The urge is to make them and raise them. There are way too many orphans for it just to be the "nurturing" instinct. If your scenario were correct then the childbirth part (after the first) would be entirely unnecessary. Women would simply adopt more children to raise.

I particularly liked the part about some homosexuals choosing to adopt, rather than go through child birth. I can only assume you speak of the daughters of Lesbos, unless your genetic manipulation has reached staggering heights. [/b][/quote]
Adopt a child. Nahhhh. I want a child that reminds me of me and has MY characteristics.


Way too many orphans.......
made by parents who:

died
didn&#39;t want them
couldn&#39;t take care of them

The fact is that the nurturing can still exist whether it&#39;s for a child your own or not but again, people want a child that looks like them.

Regarding your last statement, I read it to mean daughters of lesbians choose to adopt rather go through childbirth. hUH?

Most homosexuals choose to adopt for obvious reasons. I&#39;m sure they rather have a child of there seed but it&#39;s not normally feasible due to there lifestyle.

Get this:

If there is this "driving force" not necessarily to have sex but to procreate, how is it that some people can easily cut this urge off after having 4 children or 1 child for that matter.

There are mothers who only want one child and then no more. Some may decide to have another anyway. Babies are cute. Seeing another baby you might outweigh your career, finances, etc.
However, all of a sudden a mother can have 2 kids before age 20 and the this "driving force" just left the mother&#39;s body with that second child. <_<

Uhhh yeah uh huh whatever.

My aunt has no kids. So I guess the urgtohavekids gene was not doing it&#39;s job. She does sometimes say she wondered about seeing a ltitle baby her but ultimately she says she had me to help look after but didn&#39;t want to bother with one of her own.

Busyman,

Specific cases neither make nor break a truism.

Your aunt is a statistical minority.
Many women can subsume the urge to procreate themselves by actively participating in the rearing of another&#39;s child.
Many women don&#39;t feel the urge at all, or choose to ignore it in the pursuit of other goals.

Fortunately ( at least in terms of our continued existence), these women are the minority.
Although this could change, as the increase in survival rates for newborns continues, we need fewer and fewer births to ensure our survival as a species...

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Agrajag+23 February 2004 - 20:40--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Agrajag @ 23 February 2004 - 20:40)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Quote:

---

Originally posted by clocker@24 February 2004 - 00:32
<!--QuoteBegin-Agrajag

---

Quote:

---

@23 February 2004 - 15:58
With regard to the procreation thing, I would suggest that any female who had gone through childbirth once would not chose to go through it again. Particularly as there are many ways to ensure no more childbirth can occur.

---

An interesting point, but flawed.

Humans have a remarkably poor memory of pain.
We may remember that something hurt like a sumbitch, but trying to recall the specifics is very difficult.
I think it may be a defence mechanism.

Although I have never given birth ( obviously) I have suffered a few major traumas.
I remember wishing I could die when my lung collapsed.
But for the life of me, I can&#39;t be specific about the nuances and varieties of the pain.

Probably the massive wash of pherenomes and hormones released at birth erases the woman&#39;s memory of the physical trauma.

---

The point was as a direct response to the contention that love making was purely a physical thing. If that were the case then women could ensure that childbirth would never happen again. No matter how nebulous the memory of the pain was. The fact is that large numbers do not, they chose to go through it again. They choose to have more children in spite of what it will mean for them. That surely is not a simple pleasure thing. [/b][/quote]
First off it&#39;s not "love making".
Second off, explain:
Why women get there tubes tied? The urge gene is gone? :lol:
Why men get vasectomies?
Why get drunk and throw up in a hotel toilet bowl even after I said the last time....
,you know the age old adage

I&#39;LL NEVER DRINK AGAIN

Quote:

---

Originally posted by clocker@23 February 2004 - 21:05
Busyman,

Specific cases neither make nor break a truism.

Your aunt is a statistical minority.
Many women can subsume the urge to procreate themselves by actively participating in the rearing of another&#39;s child.
Many women don&#39;t feel the urge at all, or choose to ignore it in the pursuit of other goals.

Fortunately ( at least in terms of our continued existence), these women are the minority.
Although this could change, as the increase in survival rates for newborns continues, we need fewer and fewer births to ensure our survival as a species...

---

I&#39;ll buy that for a dollar.

Oh I know my aunt is a minority. Hell my mother is too; I&#39;m an only child.

My point is that there is a explainable reason besides there is this one "driving force" behind procreation.

It&#39;s a multitude of things. Most are explainable.

theres too many words for me to read before breakfast but i&#39;ll say again like when this happened about a year ago. think of the kids. if this goes ahead gay adoptions will.

kids need a mother and father + they&#39;d get picked on and end up broken in the head from having gay parents

Quote:

---

Originally posted by TARPD@24 February 2004 - 07:12
theres too many words for me to read before breakfast but i&#39;ll say again like when this happened about a year ago. think of the kids. if this goes ahead gay adoptions will.

kids need a mother and father + they&#39;d get picked on and end up broken in the head from having gay parents

---

:huh:

Gay adoptions have already been happening and most kids seem to turn out fine and more tolerant btw.

Quote:

---

At least and Reflect don&#39;t prove anything.

They show there is some relation.

I would argue that a smaller Corpus Callosum might have a relation to an individuals abilty to suffer from repeatative thinking, it doesn&#39;t PROVE there is not any enviromental factors involved.

---

:frusty:

Quote:

---

My point was, that there may be differences in the brain that at least reflect the sexual orientation which would prove that it isn&#39;t enviromental.

---

I didn&#39;t say it definitly proved anything. WOULD prove, not DOES prove. Nobody has said anything in this whole debate that was proven. Science doesn&#39;t know. So, we should at least look at every idea that is out there.

Quote:

---

I didn&#39;t mean that everyone with a medium Corpus Callosum was bisexual, I meant that some do decide to be gay, they may land in that area, and that was just a thought that crossed through my mind while writing.

---

Nor did I say that it wasn&#39;t ever enviromental. But, (to use a poor, but popular example), all because I like the color Blue, doesn&#39;t make my brain change. So, yes, if the studys turned out to be true, it would prove that it isn&#39;t always a choice. The only choice that is made is whether or not they want to act on there desires.