• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What's the Point of a Honeymoon In the Modern Era?

Dayton3 said:
I have beliefs I wish to promote.
Click to expand...


The First Amendment says that you cannot do that because our free speech and religious freedom rights prevent you from doing that. We don't like fascists and religious busybodies.
 
Lisa said:
The First Amendment says that you cannot do that because our free speech and religious freedom rights prevent you from doing that. We don't like fascists and religious busybodies.
Click to expand...

Actually those exact same rights are what allows him to promote those beliefs. Promote does not automatically mean make into law.
 
maquiscat said:
We don't actually know that either. It could be that it stems from one or more genes in combination either being present or activated or not activated, or even 4 or 5 different sources resulting in the same thing. Epigenetics may be the reason that you are gay (just to make an example), but I'm gay because I have these three certain genes that never activated.
Click to expand...

The epigenetic theory for homosexiality is about 5 years old.

By examining just a handful of sites along the genome and determining whether they are methylated, scientists can peg sexual orientation with nearly 70 percent accuracy. That’s according to data presented today (October 8) at the American Society of Human Genetics meeting.

“People have been looking for gay genes for 20 years and haven’t been really able to identify them, in spite of the fact that there’s interest,” Sergey Gavrilets, a professor of evolutionary biology at the University of Tennessee in Knoxville who was not involved in the study, told BuzzFeed News. “The existing evidence that we have now does point very strongly towards the significant role of epigenetics in homosexual orientation.”

Gavrilets and a pair of colleagues proposed the idea of epigenetics influencing sexual orientation several years ago. In the latest work, Eric Vilain, a neuroscientist at the University of California, Los Angeles, postdoc Tuk Ngun, and their colleagues scanned through the genomes of 47 male twin pairs. In 37 pairs, one of the brothers was gay and in 10 pairs, both brothers were gay. The researchers found that the methylation status of nine regions in the genome could identify sexual orientation with 70 percent accuracy.

“This study provides a major step forward in our understanding of how the brain can be affected by factors outside of the genome. It is also possible that the experience of being a homosexual or a heterosexual has itself impacted the epigenetic profile,” Margaret McCarthy, who studies sex differences in the brain at the University of Maryland School of Medicine, said in a statement. “But regardless of when, or even how, these epigenetic changes occur, their findings demonstrate a biological basis to partner preference.”
Click to expand...
Epigenetic Marks Tied to Homosexuality | The Scientist Magazine(R)


maquiscat said:
Actually those exact same rights are what allows him to promote those beliefs. Promote does not automatically mean make into law.
Click to expand...

Many people don't like a religious busybody sticking their nose into others' lives when they weren't asked or invited.

Dayton has made it clear in the past that he does support legislating his conservative beliefs, despite the First Amendment. I fail to have any respect for people who support fascism, as his avatar suggests, despite his denials of the meaning.
 
Last edited:
maquiscat said:
Actually those exact same rights are what allows him to promote those beliefs. Promote does not automatically mean make into law.
Click to expand...

Shutting him up would cut off a major source of amusement.
 
Lisa said:
The First Amendment says that you cannot do that because our free speech and religious freedom rights prevent you from doing that. We don't like fascists and religious busybodies.
Click to expand...

Tough. The First Amendment says I have freedom of religion. It says nothing about having freedom FROM religion.
 
Dayton3 said:
I've been married 22 years. And I'm pretty sure dowry's went out of fashion in this country long ago.
Click to expand...

But traditional marriage demands your wife's family pay you for taking such a burden off their hands. Why do you deny such God-ordained traditions?
 
spud_meister said:
But traditional marriage demands your wife's family pay you for taking such a burden off their hands. Why do you deny such God-ordained traditions?
Click to expand...

Where in the New Testament does God bless such a tradition?
 
Dayton3 said:
Tough. The First Amendment says I have freedom of religion. It says nothing about having freedom FROM religion.
Click to expand...

1.) Your freedom of religion stops at the end of your nose where the secular and religious rights of others begin.

2.) There must also be a freedom from religion because those same religious rights apply equally to non-believers.
 
spud_meister said:
That's assuming homosexuality is a genetic trait. Why would you think that?
Click to expand...

I'm not the one arguing people are born that way. Whatever it is, all I am saying is that in nature it isn't an "equal to" situation.
 
Court Jester said:
I'm not the one arguing people are born that way. Whatever it is, all I am saying is that in nature it isn't an "equal to" situation.
Click to expand...

The ability or desire to reproduce is not relevant to marriage or our rights as citizens. the gay population is stable at less than 10% as of current polling methods and humans are overpopulated on Earth, so your ideas are not relevant. The fact that many LGBT want to reproduce with their partner seems to be lost on you.
 
Dayton3 said:
But in the modern era, only 5% or so of married couples are virgins when they get married. So what is the point of a honeymoon anyway when the married couple may well have been having sex for months or even years beforehand anyway?
Click to expand...

Oh, I don't know, to have a nice vacation, away from possibly annoying people -- in-laws, possibly? Those who don't want to go on a honeymoon aren't being forced to do so. And why does anyone insist their spouse be a virgin anyway?
 
Lisa said:
What happens if you aren't sexually compatible, but you only determine this after you get married?
Click to expand...

That possibility is why I would never have married someone I'd never had sex with beforehand. It would have been an eventual cause for divorce for me.
 
Dayton3 said:
What happens if you find you are not "sexually compatible" before you are married? Do you just dump someone you love then?
Click to expand...

If sexual compatibility is that important to one partner, then I'd say yes. Don't date or marry someone you're not sexually compatible with, and make it a priority to find that out early in a relationship, not later and certainly not after marriage. You may not consider sex to be that important in a marriage, but it is to other people.
 
Dayton3 said:
Again, my religion beliefs are based in the New Testament which wasn't written until more than half a millennia AFTER the Bronze Age ended.
Click to expand...

It wouldn't matter to me whether your religious beliefs are NT or not. Any guy who was a religious conservative is a guy I made it a point never to even date, let alone marry.
 
Dayton3 said:
Of course. It figures that you would believe not only in sex before marriage, but sex before any commitment at all. It figures.
Click to expand...

Well, yeah, to me that's plain common sense. Why would I -- or anyone else for that matter -- want to commit to someone I wasn't sexually compatible with? The answer is simple; I wouldn't want to, so I wouldn't "commit" to that person.
 
OceanBlues1 said:
Well, yeah, to me that's plain common sense. Why would I -- or anyone else for that matter -- want to commit to someone I wasn't sexually compatible with? The answer is simple; I wouldn't want to, so I wouldn't "commit" to that person.
Click to expand...

How do you determine "sexual compatibility"?

Which is pretty much a myth anyway.
 
OceanBlues1 said:
It wouldn't matter to me whether your religious beliefs are NT or not. Any guy who was a religious conservative is a guy I made it a point never to even date, let alone marry.
Click to expand...


Your loss
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom