Prostitution is fine, because as you said, it is two consenting adults.
What about porn? Who cares. Who cares if a porn star teaches school. One thing has nothing to do with the other you old fart.
-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Democrats try wooing white men
Page 9 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Prostitution is fine, because as you said, it is two consenting adults.
What about porn? Who cares. Who cares if a porn star teaches school. One thing has nothing to do with the other you old fart.
You have proof in your own life. Did you feel the need to have sex with other men to determine which sex you preferred?
Texashiker
Lifer
I am pretty sure people who support gay marriage would also oppose a prostitute or porn star being an elementary school teacher.
Geosurface
Diamond Member
I personally feel that for being a tiny percentage of our society, homosexuals command far too much attention currently. I just don't think there needs to be this much focus on them and their desires.
That said, I don't really have any problem with them being able to get married... personally, if I was in charge, I probably wouldn't permit it - I'd probably do the whole "civil unions" thing at best, but this is simply not a matter I get worked up about. If people want to legalize marriage for them, whatever.
Porn is something I consider to be completely covered by free speech and by what should be an individual's right to do what they wish as long as it isn't harming anyone else. Porn probably does harm others in terms of making men in particular less satiable by real women and realistic sexual situations... but that sort of harm is self-inflicted by the porn consumer and we can't nanny state people to death. So I say let it be.
Our society is going to flat out collapse, and it won't be that much longer until it does. It will be for much larger and deeper reasons than mainstreaming of homosexuals or anything about porn. They may be symptomatic, but the liberal, moral relativism shit goes FAR deeper and has already killed our civilization. Now it's just a matter of bleeding out.
That said, I don't really have any problem with them being able to get married... personally, if I was in charge, I probably wouldn't permit it - I'd probably do the whole "civil unions" thing at best, but this is simply not a matter I get worked up about. If people want to legalize marriage for them, whatever.
Porn is something I consider to be completely covered by free speech and by what should be an individual's right to do what they wish as long as it isn't harming anyone else. Porn probably does harm others in terms of making men in particular less satiable by real women and realistic sexual situations... but that sort of harm is self-inflicted by the porn consumer and we can't nanny state people to death. So I say let it be.
Our society is going to flat out collapse, and it won't be that much longer until it does. It will be for much larger and deeper reasons than mainstreaming of homosexuals or anything about porn. They may be symptomatic, but the liberal, moral relativism shit goes FAR deeper and has already killed our civilization. Now it's just a matter of bleeding out.
Atomic Playboy
Lifer
As long as they are kept separate, who cares? Shit, if you KNOW a teacher is getting a lot of action on the side, maybe it'll cut down on all these sex scandals involving students. And I think it's worth pointing out that of the three people who have responded to your assertion so far, all three of them are OK with both prostitution and porn star educators, so while it's hardly a representative sample, it does mean that your intuition for what you're "pretty sure" people think seems to be incorrect.
I don't care what you would like to make believe people would think.
Texashiker
Lifer
Kinda like the ivy league college student who was outed as a porn star, and she made national news?
Do not "act" like people do not care.
MrPickins
Diamond Member
The only way to end inequality is to bring it to light. If it's not "in your face", the movements get nowhere.
Look at the women's suffrage movement and the civil rights movements for examples.
Give gay people their rights instead of fighting tooth and nail to prevent equal treatment, and the issue will be gone. People like you are the ones that keep the issue going when ti shouldn't have been solved over a decade ago. Thank yourself.
Civil unions don't work for numerous reasons, which leads me to believe that you know pretty much nothing about the issue, but still think you have enough info to form an opinion. Sad.
MrPickins
Diamond Member
People love to be titillated (see what I did there? :sneaky🙂, and the media is all too happy to oblige, unfortunately.
Last edited:
"News" in america is about sensationalizing things. Lots of ridiculous things make the news. That isn't a barometer of what people care about.
Atomic Playboy
Lifer
People also watch Honey Boo Boo and Real Housewives. So what? People like sensationalized trash. That doesn't mean it should dictate government policy. And I fail to see how any of that ties in to gay marriage.
People like you obviously care.
zinfamous
No Lifer
not really. opinions on either topic aren't necessarily related to each other.
penises.
Geosurface
Diamond Member
No actually the problem is that you're misunderstanding where I'm coming from.
Being essentially a biological glitch who didn't turn out the way nature's blueprint intended will always be worse than not being so. It will always be disadvantageous and people who turn out that way at birth will always have a worse lot in life. Sad, but true.
This is the case whether you're born blind, missing limbs, with Down Syndrome, or homosexual. Society should reflect the majority, and be tailored to their needs and sensibilities. Trying to accommodate the exceptions isn't a good strategy IMO.
It sucks to be blind, society is set up for those with sight.
It sucks to be deaf, society is set up for those with hearing.
It sucks to be gay, society is set up for those who are straight.
Facts of life, from my perspective. Seeking to make things easier on these groups is fine, but it can also go too far. Like mandating that all books be printed in braille, or that you cannot publish a book unless you publish an equal number of copies in braille and an audio book for the deaf... that's going too far.
Opening up marriage to homosexuals or polygamists or those who would like to marry a close relative may have negative impacts on societal cohesion which make it not worth the benefit of being more inclusive and accommodating. Society benefits from having some clarity about normality. For those who had no choice but to be abnormal, my heart goes out to them. My support in fulfilling their every desire may not, however.
I believe inequality is natural, and a part of life. I'm not saying it should never be addressed, but we've gone way too far with it. Trying to strive for some stupid ideal of things like 50/50 women and men as firefighters, or an exact racial representation in every profession, etc... just simply ignores reality and causes far more and worse problems than just accepting that inequality will always exist, and letting the chips fall where they may.
MrPickins
Diamond Member
Excuse me if I feel that encouraging equality is a noble pursuit.
Besides, the things you mentioned aren't the type of equality we're discussing. The issue is equality of opportunity.
Sure, there are probably a lot more male firefighters/cops than women, but each gender has the opportunity to pursue those careers.
As it is, gay people are being denied the opportunity to marry, and for no legitimate reason.
What's your confusion? Both movements were in your face, commanding your attention. Gay rights is no different.
I'm sorry, but you're going to have to back that (extremely vague) statement up.
Last edited:
Geosurface
Diamond Member
I simply believe that society benefits greatly from (and actually requires) clarity on what is normal and what is not.
I think any society which loses that clarity will collapse, and I believe we are heading for a very painful and inevitable collapse currently.
I'm not saying some craziness of "let them gays get married and Satan will rise up and God will smite our society for ignoring his laws!" or some stupidity like that. I don't believe in anything supernatural and I don't think there's anything "evil" about homosexuality. But I do think traditional, long-standing prejudices are usually rooted in a subconscious perception of a threat without fully knowing why it's a threat.
I think becoming the sort of society which doesn't assert that some things are normal and other things are not can have dire consequences for societal cohesion and vigor.
Keep in mind I've been a VERY strong proponent of gay marriage in all 50 states and gays in the military for years and years. I have just recently started to think that these deep seated uneasinesses our society has had with certain things, reflect actual dangers posed by them. I think we ignore traditional prejudices at our peril.
Let's hope I'm wrong and that I was right before.
Texashiker
Lifer
Aren't they related?
How can we justify one form of sexual freedom, but dismiss other forms?
How can society say what happens between two adults is none of your business, but do not want a porn star stripper teaching school.
Isn't that bigotry in its purest form? What is ok for one group is not ok for another group?
penis penis.
MrPickins
Diamond Member
Well, I certainly applaud you for being a supporter.
I understand the logic of what you're getting at, but I think that the "deep seated uneasiness" is being overblown by a vocal minority.
If you look, 59% of Americans support gay marriage:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/page/.../05/National-Politics/Polling/release_301.xml
MrPickins
Diamond Member
Just in case you still don't understand, sex != marriage.
Incidentally, Geosurface, I'm getting some major dissonance between the posts you make where you want to break down severe misconceptions among the majority and the posts where you want to uphold perception as valid solely for being backed by the majority (even where it's questionable if such a majority exists)
Texashiker
Lifer
Society is supposed to accept gay marriage, but we do not have to accept gay sex as normal?
What "exactly" are you saying?
Maybe you are trying to justify being a bigot?
You are ok with gay sex and gay marriage, but do not want a porn star or stripper teaching at your kids school?
MrPickins
Diamond Member
I'm saying that the way you discuss sex and marriage as interchangeable is juvenile and asinine.
The examples you just presented are irrelevant.
I'm also thoroughly convinced this is the real reason you're against gay marriage: you equate it with sodomy, which you find to be "icky".
Texashiker
Lifer
In other words you are a bigot.
Sexual freedom and marriage equality only matter when you think it does.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
-
-
