This is the definitive place to discuss everything that makes life on & off campus so unique in Central Virginia.

Moderators: jcmanson, Sly Fox, BuryYourDuke

By Yacht Rock
Registration Days Posts
#497454
He may not have been eloquent but he's obviously making a valid point about human physiology and the role it plays in man/woman relationship vs man/man or woman/woman relationships.

The reality is that the forward momentum of the human race has relied on the nature of heterosexual relationships since creation. Whether you believe it is by God's design or via evolution, it is the reality. It's a valid point when discussing the biological onsequences of same sex relationships and heterosexual relationships.

Obviously though it's a purely academic argument. Anyone who actually thinks we need to put people on an island to understand that they won't reproduce is stupid. Of course the whole thing could end up being like Jurassic Park and they surprise us all.
By ATrain
Registration Days Posts
#497455
Somehow I think heterosexuals will keep getting married, or at least continue reproducing, even though the law now recognizes marriages of people between the same sex.
By flamehunter
Registration Days Posts
#497471
ATrain wrote:Somehow I think heterosexuals will keep getting married, or at least continue reproducing, even though the law now recognizes marriages of people between the same sex.
So you admit that natural heterosexual reproductive relationships are required to sustain the human race. Got it. Does that mean that gay relationships are natural also?
By ATrain
Registration Days Posts
#497472
flamehunter wrote:
ATrain wrote:Somehow I think heterosexuals will keep getting married, or at least continue reproducing, even though the law now recognizes marriages of people between the same sex.
So you admit that natural heterosexual reproductive relationships are required to sustain the human race. Got it. Does that mean that gay relationships are natural also?
No one ever argued that it wasn't. Considering that same-sex behavior has been documented in many different species, yes.
User avatar
By Purple Haize
Registration Days Posts
#497474
flamehunter wrote:But we are created in God's image, we're not animals.
That's what the Elephant Man said too
By ATrain
Registration Days Posts
#497476
flamehunter wrote:But we are created in God's image, we're not animals.
And that brings us back to the evolution v. creation debate. Regardless of how you feel we are (or aren't) created in God's image or whether we are (or aren't) animals, that's not the basis for deciding legal issues. There are also some who would argue that God created certain people to be naturally attracted to those of the same-sex.
User avatar
By Purple Haize
Registration Days Posts
#497487
flamehunter wrote:I guess we are coming at it from completely different perspectives.
Ya think :dontgetit
By ATrain
Registration Days Posts
#497491
flamehunter wrote:I guess we are coming at it from completely different perspectives.
There's no guessing here involved, we just simply are.
By flamehunter
Registration Days Posts
#497494
Purple Haize wrote:
flamehunter wrote:I guess we are coming at it from completely different perspectives.
Ya think :dontgetit
I wasn't talking about our differing tastes in partners. Wake up.
User avatar
By Purple Haize
Registration Days Posts
#497497
flamehunter wrote:
Purple Haize wrote:
flamehunter wrote:I guess we are coming at it from completely different perspectives.
Ya think :dontgetit
I wasn't talking about our differing tastes in partners. Wake up.
Oh. I'm awake there sizzle chest.
By ALUmnus
Registration Days Posts
#497498
ATrain wrote:Regardless of how you feel we are (or aren't) created in God's image or whether we are (or aren't) animals, that's not the basis for deciding legal issues.
Man I hate going off topic, but...yeah, it kinda is. Much of the law is based on those two very things.
ATrain wrote:There are also some who would argue that God created certain people to be naturally attracted to those of the same-sex.
Not to go into how utterly absurd that argument would be, the whole "some would argue" just doesn't convince anyone. Tell us what you would argue, not some phantom "someone". But I already know that is what you'd argue, you sorta have to.
By ATrain
Registration Days Posts
#497506
ALUmnus wrote:
ATrain wrote:Regardless of how you feel we are (or aren't) created in God's image or whether we are (or aren't) animals, that's not the basis for deciding legal issues.
Man I hate going off topic, but...yeah, it kinda is. Much of the law is based on those two very things.
ATrain wrote:There are also some who would argue that God created certain people to be naturally attracted to those of the same-sex.
Not to go into how utterly absurd that argument would be, the whole "some would argue" just doesn't convince anyone. Tell us what you would argue, not some phantom "someone". But I already know that is what you'd argue, you sorta have to.
Since you already know what I would argue, why are you asking? And by some, I was implying more than just "someone." However, we've had that debate in other threads.
By ATrain
Registration Days Posts
#497507
flamehunter wrote:
Purple Haize wrote:
flamehunter wrote:I guess we are coming at it from completely different perspectives.
Ya think :dontgetit
I wasn't talking about our differing tastes in partners. Wake up.
I'm pretty sure he knew what you were talking about.
Dondi Costin - LU President

The recent statements by Costin on moving away […]

NCAA Realignment Megathread

Duke Gonzaga B12? https://larrybrownsports.com/co[…]

FlameFans Fantasy Baseball

We are on!!! Hope to see everyone tonight at 9:30[…]

Another player that most people who post on here[…]