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.

Sorry Dwightfry missed that :)

Make up was originally designed to imitate how a woman looks when they are most fertile. Why do you think this is? Because when women are fertile men are more attracted to them, they produce more pheromones.

Heteosexual go partners that have dissimlar features, this is because they are less likely to be genetically close to you. They also look for symetrical face shapes because this signifies a good genetic make up.

when a a women is closer to her fertile period, she will seek a more reliable male and be extra picky.

Humans are animals we have instinct, no matter how much society obsures it.

There is so much research on this like sweat tests where women where asked to smell sweaty t shirts and say which one they like the most.... they picked different ones depending on where they where in there menstrual cycle.. they picked men how were less similar to them genetically when there were close to fertility and men who where genetically similar when they were not, e.g. men who act as protection fathers, brothers and relatives.

I&#39;m kinda surprised, about 31% are against gay marraiges. (22 - 43)

I expected it to be closer to 10% to 15%

and of those, only 32% are okay with civil unions (7 - 15)

I expected that to be at least 50%.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Wizard_Mon1@24 February 2004 - 09:58
Sorry Dwightfry missed that :)

Make up was originally designed to imitate how a woman looks when they are most fertile. Why do you think this is? Because when women are fertile men are more attracted to them, they produce more pheromones.

Heteosexual go partners that have dissimlar features, this is because they are less likely to be genetically close to you. They also look for symetrical face shapes because this signifies a good genetic make up.

when a a women is closer to her fertile period, she will seek a more reliable male and be extra picky.

Humans are animals we have instinct, no matter how much society obsures it.

There is so much research on this like sweat tests where women where asked to smell sweaty t shirts and say which one they like the most.... they picked different ones depending on where they where in there menstrual cycle.. they picked men how were less similar to them genetically when there were close to fertility and men who where genetically similar when they were not, e.g. men who act as protection fathers, brothers and relatives.

---

Wow with all this "proof" of what I like and "why" I like it you then believe gays are born gay and I have sex just to procreate.

Women wear gold lipstick and foundation to look fertile? :blink:

I don&#39;t know about you but I&#39;m most attracted to my woman when she is butt naked and curling her tongue up at me while playing herself&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33; :lol: :lol:

Keep reading those studies. They seem to have us "animals" all mapped out.

Hi,

Gays should be allowed to marry, they are humans and they have the right to marry. Even if its in a church, court, drive-thru,

AND this won&#39;t be set as "Gay as normal" , come on, most people in the world are Hetro,

AND if any ask me if I am gay (Which I am not) is a bigger homo then anybody else. Enuff said, if you support gay marriage, it doesnt mean you are gay, it means you are liberal, you du-mass.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by vegasguy@25 February 2004 - 03:03
Hi,

Gays should be allowed to marry, they are humans and they have the right to marry. Even if its in a church, court, drive-thru,

AND this won&#39;t be set as "Gay as normal" , come on, most people in the world are Hetro,

AND if any ask me if I am gay (Which I am not) is a bigger homo then anybody else. Enuff said, if you support gay marriage, it doesnt mean you are gay, it means you are liberal, you du-mass.

---

First off who the hell are you talking too&#33;&#33;&#33;

No one said anything about whoever supports marriage is gay.

Before you post in here again, pick your brain up off the floor and try to hoist it upon your shoulders. :lol:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Busyman+27 February 2004 - 01:18--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Busyman &#064; 27 February 2004 - 01:18)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-vegasguy@25 February 2004 - 03:03
Hi,

Gays should be allowed to marry, they are humans and they have the right to marry.&nbsp; Even if its in a church, court, drive-thru,

AND this won&#39;t be set as "Gay as normal" , come on, most people in the world are Hetro,

AND if any ask me if I am gay (Which I am not) is a bigger homo then anybody else.&nbsp; Enuff said, if you support gay marriage, it doesnt mean you are gay, it means you are liberal, you du-mass.

---

First off who the hell are you talking too&#33;&#33;&#33;

No one said anything about whoever supports marriage is gay.

Before you post in here again, pick your brain up off the floor and try to hoist it upon your shoulders. :lol:[/b][/quote]
Actually, I started this thread, and the first replay I got was

Quote:

---

First of all lets get this outta the way ? Are you gay ?

---

So...yes, at least one person believed that if you supported gay marriage, you may be gay.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by dwightfry+27 February 2004 - 12:41--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (dwightfry &#064; 27 February 2004 - 12:41)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Busyman@27 February 2004 - 01:18
<!--QuoteBegin-vegasguy

---

Quote:

---

@25 February 2004 - 03:03
Hi,

Gays should be allowed to marry, they are humans and they have the right to marry. Even if its in a church, court, drive-thru,

AND this won&#39;t be set as "Gay as normal" , come on, most people in the world are Hetro,

AND if any ask me if I am gay (Which I am not) is a bigger homo then anybody else. Enuff said, if you support gay marriage, it doesnt mean you are gay, it means you are liberal, you du-mass.

---

First off who the hell are you talking too&#33;&#33;&#33;

No one said anything about whoever supports marriage is gay.

Before you post in here again, pick your brain up off the floor and try to hoist it upon your shoulders. :lol:

---

Actually, I started this thread, and the first replay I got was

Quote:

---

First of all lets get this outta the way ? Are you gay ?

---

So...yes, at least one person believed that if you supported gay marriage, you may be gay. [/b][/quote]
Ok I&#39;ll buy that but this vegasfella proceeds with the du-mass remark so I wouldn&#39;t think he&#39;s talking about a post near the beginning.

Hell he&#39;s got 3 stars so I would think he&#39;s know how to use the quote button.

edit: I did forget, due to the relaxed rules in the Lounge, we do have 5 stars noobs.

I stand corrected. <_< (well no not really)

the Canadian Edition of the Oxford English Dictionary will soon revise its definition of "marriage" to specify a contract between two "people" rather than man and woman.

unless i can find the Edmonton Journal article, this one from the popular gay magazine The Advocate will have to do.
http://www.advocate.com/new_news.asp...84&sd=09/17/03

if this leaves anyone scratching their heads, wondering if it&#39;s a propaganda manuever or thinking it&#39;s a technical foul... one needs to understand that dictionaries do not hand language down to us and force us to accept it. definitions found in religious texts may be sacred, but there&#39;s nothing sacred about a dictionary. a dictionary&#39;s purpose is to document words & meanings as they are used by contemporary society... society dictates the content and meanings of its language, and the language dictates what goes into a dictionary. :)

Another update:

Dictionary: Paper product suitable for wiping one&#39;s ass.

Question, 3RA1N1AC:

How would I install society on my PC so as to stay up to speed on these new and constantly changing definitions?

I might finally have to do something, as I haven&#39;t previously felt the need for such a thing.

Does what I just typed still mean what it did when I typed it, or did I just ask you where in London to shop for an inflatable shoehorn suitable for use while on holiday in Oslo during unseasonably warm weather? :huh:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by j2k4@27 February 2004 - 20:57
Dictionary: Paper product suitable for wiping one&#39;s ass.

---

different strokes.

Quote:

---

How would I install society on my PC so as to stay up to speed on these new and constantly changing definitions?

---

you don&#39;t have to. you don&#39;t even have to buy a new dictionary. like i said, it&#39;s not a rule book. if you sincerely wish to keep up to date on english as used by modern speakers of the language, the Oxford Dictionary is a worthy choice since it has sheer numbers on its side (in terms of pages, and number of people employed to find & verify new words & definitions). if english as spoken & defined by contemporary society is unacceptable to you... well, different strokes.

Quote:

---

Does what I just typed still mean what it did when I typed it, or did I just ask you where in London to shop for an inflatable shoehorn suitable for use while on holiday in Oslo during unseasonably warm weather? :huh:

---

if you&#39;ve got doubts about the language&#39;s suitability to precisely convey your intended meanings, you could try doing what Shakespeare did: just make a whole slew of words up. they (along with your definitions) might gain common acceptance and end up in a dictionary someday. at least there&#39;ll be no controversy over what you meant to say.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 3RA1N1AC@28 February 2004 - 02:23
if you&#39;ve got doubts about the language&#39;s suitability to precisely convey your intended meanings, you could try doing what Shakespeare did: just make a whole slew of words up. they (along with your definitions) might gain common acceptance and end up in a dictionary someday. at least there&#39;ll be no controversy over what you meant to say.

---

Then I am a throwback; I&#39;ve been doing that for years. ;)

Now, if you&#39;ll excuse me, I have to walk my dinosaur. :)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 3RA1N1AC@28 February 2004 - 04:46
the Canadian Edition of the Oxford English Dictionary will soon revise its definition of "marriage" to specify a contract between two "people" rather than man and woman.

unless i can find the Edmonton Journal article, this one from the popular gay magazine The Advocate will have to do.
http://www.advocate.com/new_news.asp...84&sd=09/17/03

if this leaves anyone scratching their heads, wondering if it&#39;s a propaganda manuever or thinking it&#39;s a technical foul... one needs to understand that dictionaries do not hand language down to us and force us to accept it. definitions found in religious texts may be sacred, but there&#39;s nothing sacred about a dictionary. a dictionary&#39;s purpose is to document words & meanings as they are used by contemporary society... society dictates the content and meanings of its language, and the language dictates what goes into a dictionary. :)

---

Why is there a Canadian version of the English dictionary ? Do they speak Canadian English ?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Agrajag+28 February 2004 - 23:51--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Agrajag &#064; 28 February 2004 - 23:51)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-3RA1N1AC@28 February 2004 - 04:46
the Canadian Edition of the Oxford English Dictionary will soon revise its definition of "marriage" to specify a contract between two "people" rather than man and woman.

unless i can find the Edmonton Journal article, this one from the popular gay magazine The Advocate will have to do.
http://www.advocate.com/new_news.asp...84&sd=09/17/03

if this leaves anyone scratching their heads, wondering if it&#39;s a propaganda manuever or thinking it&#39;s a technical foul... one needs to understand that dictionaries do not hand language down to us and force us to accept it.&nbsp; definitions found in religious texts may be sacred, but there&#39;s nothing sacred about a dictionary.&nbsp; a dictionary&#39;s purpose is to document words & meanings as they are used by contemporary society... society dictates the content and meanings of its language, and the language dictates what goes into a dictionary.&nbsp; :)

---

Why is there a Canadian version of the English dictionary ? Do they speak Canadian English ?[/b][/quote]
Google it, you thread hi-jacker.

Canadian Oxford

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Agrajag@28 February 2004 - 14:51

Why is there a Canadian version of the English dictionary ? Do they speak Canadian English ?

---

Not satisfied with the definitions of "eh" and "hoser" provided by other dictionaries, the Canadians felt it necessary to publish their own, unique tome.

My understanding is that page two is due out soon.....

It&#39;s got far more pages than two. Remember it has to not only explain what a butter tart is, it also has to change Newfie into something vaguely recognisable as English, and do the same with Quebecois.

:ninja:

Ok, I&#39;ll bite.

What is a butter tart?

It&#39;s...a butter tart. I actually didn&#39;t know it wasn&#39;t a widespread food until this year. ;)

They&#39;re usually made around Christmas. They&#39;re filled with a buttery and sugary custard that&#39;s studded with rum-soaked raisins.

http://www.cooksco.com/images/tart.jpg

There&#39;s a picture. ;)

http://www.pastrywiz.com/archive/buttet.htm is a recipe, although I can&#39;t vouch for it, because I always use my Grandma&#39;s recipe (which is the best one :P).

:ninja:

I see.

And this justifies a whole new dictionary?

Wouldn&#39;t an episode of the Iron Chef have sufficed?

Apparently it&#39;s a contentious subject. How sugary, how buttery, how thick, with walnuts, without walnuts, with or without pecans, and so on.

Plus the butter tart is just an example, you jackabaun. ;)

:ninja:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by MagicNakor@29 February 2004 - 05:28
Apparently it&#39;s a contentious subject. How sugary, how buttery, how thick, with walnuts, without walnuts, with or without pecans, and so on.

Plus the butter tart is just an example, you jackabaun. ;)

:ninja:

---

So, are you for gay marriage or against it? Sorry for being dense, but your butter tart analogies are too obtuse for me.

As the thread really hasn&#39;t been about gay marriage for quite some time, I figured there was no better time to begin my reign of butter tart terror.

:ninja:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by MagicNakor@29 February 2004 - 06:43
As the thread really hasn&#39;t been about gay marriage for quite some time, I figured there was no better time to begin my reign of butter tart terror.

:ninja:

---

And thus, darkness falls upon this thread.

God have mercy....mercy.

You can&#39;t fight it hobbes.

He&#39;s a mod with a mission.

as for gay marriage, i dont care. i dont have enough time to give a shit about something this stupid. :lol: