I think that the 'love-making' component seems to apply whether it's hetero- or homo-, really. Obviously, it need not be procreative, but that's only a subset of the reason why sex is beneficial for some people.
Polygamy, right or wrong?
- Thread starter classical_hero
- Start date
Leonel
Breakfast Connoisseur
You argue for biological sense yet you dismiss it entirely when the biology itself becomes contradictory to your main argument?
What do you mean by natural? The anus is an erogenous zone.
Once again, what do you mean by natural? What's natural about marriage?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Rome#Gay_marriage
Hygro
soundcloud.com/hygro/
GW16, I respect that you are trying to think critically about this but you learn pretty fast how natural all kinds of sex is the moment you actually start doing it. This is definitely a time to not parrot people with political or social agendas that have nothing to do with how arbitrarily natural something is. Its more a time to listen and ask questions.
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
Nuance detected, and I mostly agree. I still dont even see them as precisely 'equal' either (for example, I think traditional couples should have priority in adoption cases over SSM couples). My apologies.
Don't get me started on BAQ BAH. It's the primary reason I got out of the military. Married guys got special treatment as far as I'm concerned, and the military treats single guys as second class citizens. Not only do they get paid more, but they work less hours, because the supervisors let them off whenever the wife has a problem at home. Which means the single guys are working even more hours.
Ok, i'm going to have to correct you here. Married guys dont get 'paid more'. Married guys get the same basic pay of their rank as single soldiers.
BAH is a benefit, and all soldiers that live off post receive it to varying degree, even single soldiers. Its not solely based on marriage status, but upon dependency upon the soldier and also their location. Its meant to be an offset for local housing costs.
As to your allegation that married soldiers work less, thats just a load of bull, and it utterly depends on ones supervisor. My first year in the Army I was gone 7 months out of the year, and had a wife and newborn baby then. I didnt see any special treatment for having a family. In fact, I had to work an extra job at night to help pay for bills so my wife could stay at home with the baby.
I've seen many. And considering the divorce rate the military experiences, its inane to call it a 'married man's society'. Its anything but that. Perhaps you should have hated your unfair supervisor and made an EO/IG complaint against him as opposed to blaming the military in total for your one small example.
That's actually just a really sad, reductionist, human-hating view of sexuality. Hopefully you'll grow out of it - some people never do.
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
Some species of animals mate for life....
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
Apparently you've never heard of a 'common law' marriage, I take it?
warpus
In pork I trust
I just thought I'd point out that rape is more natural than monogamy
timtofly
One Day
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2009
- Messages
- 9,445
Would that make it more acceptable?
warpus
In pork I trust
You should direct your question at those who are making the argument that natural acts are more acceptable than those that aren't.
IdiotsOpposite
Boom, headshot.
Sorry, but I don't accept common law marriages as marriages. That's just stretching the definition of marriage too far for me.
And that's why we should ban them.
A common law marriage just means a couple who live together monogamously - it doesn't convey any special rights.
In Australia it's called a "de facto" relationship and has been legislated to be basically equal to a formal marriage in most legal contexts. Initially that was because tax and welfare and stuff, as well as conferring next of kin and the like.
However, it's also actually sort of a back door by which same sex relationships have been brought close to equality, since same sex de facto relationships are recognised.
However, it's also actually sort of a back door by which same sex relationships have been brought close to equality, since same sex de facto relationships are recognised.
holy king
Deity
did you see that youtube clip with the monkey and the frog?
Others eat their partner after copulation.
Terxpahseyton
Nobody
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2006
- Messages
- 10,759
While we are at it: It is pretty natural to kill your offspring, too. For humans and many other animals (and I mean after birth, so shut up pro-lifers 
).
But as I already explained in the thread on naturality: If you use naturality to justify something, you don't understand the concept of naturality. Which is the quit arbitrary distinction between a state of purity and exterior factors which corrupt this purity. So only a word to describe a view point of a relation. By itself - nothing more. Thats why it is so easy to make people look inconsistent who use naturality as an argument nevertheless
).But as I already explained in the thread on naturality: If you use naturality to justify something, you don't understand the concept of naturality. Which is the quit arbitrary distinction between a state of purity and exterior factors which corrupt this purity. So only a word to describe a view point of a relation. By itself - nothing more. Thats why it is so easy to make people look inconsistent who use naturality as an argument nevertheless
Similar threads
- Locked
