I predict beastiality will be the next boundary to be crossed

[WHAMPOM]

Still don't know what raping a goat has to do with same sex marriage.

 

[zinfamous]

why the fuck did you just quote your own post to say "very well said"?

It must have been that stupid.

I'm wondering that as well...but he also replaced his name with that of another poster...so it gets weirder.

 

[zinfamous]

You can't enter in to a contract with a non-person regardless.

What's that have to do with beastiality?

ah, so you're just arguing for the 'ol in-and-out with the beasts of the wild, but not the marrying of them? (yes to bestiality; no comment re: beastial marriage)

carry on, then.

 

[Sho'Nuff]

why the fuck did you just quote your own post to say "very well said"?

It must have been that stupid.

Because he quoted my post and not his own.

Regardless of whether the content of my post was "stupid" or not, I think it sums up the issue most "religious" people have with the acceptance of gay "marriage" by the government. If the government used some other term (e.g., "union") instead of marriage and specified that a legal union was defined as a legal contract entered into by two humans in a witnessed ceremony, there would be absolutely no merit to the arguments advanced by those opposing gay marriage, because there would be no religious foundation for the interpretation of the term used in the relevant statute. Instead, the government unfortunately elected to use the word "marriage," which has a religious connotation that, according to many faiths, is exclusive of unions between persons of the same sex.

FWIW - it is extremely difficult (in my view) to distinguish anti-gay sentiment from the racist sentiment that was prevalent in many cultures pre-1970. The supreme court addressed those racial issues in the 50's (in Brown v. Board of Education), and for the most part people in the U.S. now view (then widely accepted) racist views with contempt. I predict the same will happen to anti-gay sentiment. There will be a lot of upset people crying sour grapes for a while. But in 20-30 years rationality will take over and people will wonder why it was ever acceptable to treat someone differently just because they happen to be attracted to someone of the same sex. The recent supreme court decision just started us down the path to accepting people of different sexual orientation, just as the decision in Brown kick started the country towards accepting people of different racial backgrounds.

 

[Phoenix86]

Instead, the government unfortunately elected to use the word "marriage," which has a religious connotation that, according to many faiths, is exclusive of unions between persons of the same sex.

Unfortunately? I'm pretty sure it was by design. Religious minded folks in government wanted government protection to a religious idea. Tax breaks to encourage it, special consideration on insurance, etc.

Religion wants these things, but then they want to cry foul when government doesn't play by their rules. I didn't hear them complaining when they got those special considerations they asked for.

I think you're 100% correct on the way history will view this, it'll be a repeat of racial tensions.

 

[TheFamilyMan]

Are you implying that same-sex attraction is a defect?

From an evolutionary standpoint, yes it would be a defect. Base human instinct and programming is to procreate.

History shows this has been done by force (think cavemen-style taking of women) and by consent/love/arrangement (current species dynamic).

From a societal standpoint, it is not considered a defect as overrides to base human instinct are not uncommon.

 

[OutHouse]

Goat Sex.... D:

http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2012/12/05/man-marries-goat-for-cover-of-the-stranger :awe:

this sick fuck needs to be removed from the planet. and why does the goat not have any ears?

 

[waggy]

Goat Sex.... D:

http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2012/12/05/man-marries-goat-for-cover-of-the-stranger :awe:

ahh. i see Klin finally took my advice to fuck a goat.

Congrats!

 

[sandorski]

From an evolutionary standpoint, yes it would be a defect. Base human instinct and programming is to procreate.

History shows this has been done by force (think cavemen-style taking of women) and by consent/love/arrangement (current species dynamic).

From a societal standpoint, it is not considered a defect as overrides to base human instinct are not uncommon.

No. Evolution isn't a judge, it's just a process.

 

[zinfamous]

this sick fuck needs to be removed from the planet. and why does the goat not have any ears?

um...maybe just click on the link unless you are firm believer in jumping to conclusions.

 

[Jeffg010]

Nation is going down for reaaaaallll

I know what you came here to see / If you're a freak, then ya coming home with me / And I know what you came here to do / Now bust it open let me see you get low…

Flo Rida

 

[Ruptga]

posting in a jedi thread

 

[BoomerD]

ahh. i see Klin finally took my advice to fuck a goat.

Congrats!

Waggy...Klin wishes he had that much hair...

 

[CZroe]

No. Evolution isn't a judge, it's just a process.

Don't play dumb. It's a process alright: natural selection. Natural selection requires reproduction, sexual or otherwise. Same-sex attraction is only a part of that process in the way that other unrelated traits have made it through or been selected out. Is it even genetic/inheritable or does it exist because it gives some advantage after factoring nature versus nurture?

 

[TheFamilyMan]

No. Evolution isn't a judge, it's just a process.

Wrong...evolution is judge, jury and sometimes executioner. As a pure species whose only guaranteed method of survival is male-female sexual reproduction, homosexuality is a defect. Again, this is from a pure evolutionary and species perspective.

Homosexuality has been defined by society as "normal". As a humans who are only here for a good 80 - 90 years at best, we should care less about another's choice of sexual and emotional stimuli. People are free to make choices to be who they want and should be supported when they are living their life to it's happiest.

 

[sandorski]

Don't play dumb. It's a process alright: natural selection. Natural selection requires reproduction, sexual or otherwise. Same-sex attraction is only a part of that process in the way that other unrelated traits have made it through or been selected out. Is it even genetic/inheritable or does it exist because it gives some advantage after factoring nature versus nurture?

Evolution doesn't require anything. It is not a Person, it does not have feelings, it does not cause "defects". Those kinds of Judgements are entirely ours, not Evolutions'.

If Homosexuals want children, they can easily have them and many do.

 

[sandorski]

Wrong...evolution is judge, jury and sometimes executioner. As a pure species whose only guaranteed method of survival is male-female sexual reproduction, homosexuality is a defect. Again, this is from a pure evolutionary and species perspective.

Homosexuality has been defined by society as "normal". As a humans who are only here for a good 80 - 90 years at best, we should care less about another's choice of sexual and emotional stimuli. People are free to make choices to be who they want and should be supported when they are living their life to it's happiest.

No. See my previous post.

 

[CZroe]

Evolution doesn't require anything. It is not a Person, it does not have feelings, it does not cause "defects". Those kinds of Judgements are entirely ours, not Evolutions'.

If Homosexuals want children, they can easily have them and many do.

OK, so if you aren't playing dumb...

 

[KeithTalent]

Because he quoted my post and not his own.

Regardless of whether the content of my post "stupid" or not, I think it sums up the issue most "religious" people have with the acceptance of gay "marriage" by the government. If the government used some other term (e.g., "union") instead of marriage and specified that a legal union was defined as a legal contract entered into by two humans in a witnessed ceremony, there would be absolutely no merit to the arguments advanced by those opposing gay marriage, because there would be no religious foundation for the interpretation of the term used in the relevant statute. Instead, the government unfortunately elected to use the word "marriage," which has a religious connotation that, according to many faiths, is exclusive of unions between persons of the same sex.

FWIW - it is extremely difficult (in my view) to distinguish anti-gay sentiment from the racist sentiment that was prevalent in many cultures pre-1970. The supreme court addressed those racial issues in the 50's (in Brown v. Board of Education), and for the most part people in the U.S. now view (then widely accepted) racist views with contempt. I predict the same will happen to anti-gay sentiment. There will be a lot of upset people crying sour grapes for a while. But in 20-30 years rationality will take over and people will wonder why it was ever acceptable to treat someone differently just because they happen to be attracted to someone of the same sex. The recent supreme court decision just started us down the path to accepting people of different sexual orientation, just as the decision in Brown kick started the country towards accepting people of different racial backgrounds.

That's weird, I was "married" or had a "marriage" to a woman and never thought at any single point it had anything to do with something religious. No reason I should not be allowed to marry just because I am not religious and same sex couples should not be barred from doing it either just because certain individuals have some sort of religious definition attached to it.

I don't think there was any other option but to call it marriage, because that is what it is, no matter what some people may think. Saying "yeah, you can only do this version of a union, so we can keep you over in this little box" would be completely fucked up.

Oh and the OP is fucked, not that we didn't already know that.

KT

 

[sandorski]

OK, so if you aren't playing dumb...

What part is confusing you?

 

[Red Squirrel]

ahh. i see Klin finally took my advice to fuck a goat.

Congrats!

Looks like they'll be really happy together, just look at those faces! :biggrin:

 

[Sho'Nuff]

That's weird, I was "married" or had a "marriage" to a woman and never thought at any single point it had anything to do with something religious. No reason I should not be allowed to marry just because I am not religious and same sex couples should not be barred from doing it either just because certain individuals have some sort of religious definition attached to it.

I suspect you get my point already, but if not - the point is that many people (especially religious people) attribute a religious meaning to the word "marriage." Some people (you for instance), do not and simply associate the word with the concept of a legal union. But that does not eliminate the fact that the meaning of the word marriage differs between different societal groups. In that way the word "marriage" bears a somewhat ironic relationship to the word "fucked." Depending on the context its used or the viewpoints of the speaker/listener, the word can have very different meanings.

 

[Sho'Nuff]

Unfortunately? I'm pretty sure it was by design.

Oh I agree with you that it was by design. But that fact does not make the word choice any less unfortunate.

 

[KeithTalent]

I suspect you get my point already, but if not - the point is that many people (especially religious people) attribute a religious meaning to the word "marriage." Some people (you for instance), do not and simply associate the word with the concept of a legal union. But that does not eliminate the fact that the meaning of the word marriage differs between different societal groups. In that way the word "marriage" bears a somewhat ironic relationship to the word "fucked." Depending on the context its used or the viewpoints of the speaker/listener, the word can have very different meanings.

Right, I understood that, but why should that preclude one group from using it?

KT

 

[reallyscrued]

Wrong...evolution is judge, jury and sometimes executioner. As a pure species whose only guaranteed method of survival is male-female sexual reproduction, homosexuality is a defect.

Homosexuality has been defined by society as "normal". As a humans who are only here for a good 80 - 90 years at best, we should care less about another's choice of sexual and emotional stimuli. People are free to make choices to be who they want and should be supported when they are living their life to it's happiest.

Lol, you know what I like about people like you? You have the natural aptitude to research and maybe even understand scientific schools of thought, but then you contort the material to fitting your world view of cynicism with your "ooh im so edgy and dark" attitude...although it definitely is more refreshing than the "holier-than-thou" attitude you typically receive with this topic of discussion.

Newsflash: If it happens in "nature", then it can be classified as *natural*. We're not defining it in society as "normal" or "un-normal", we're trying to figure out the legal avenue in how to handle it. The Supreme Court doesn't have final say in popular opinion. Homosexuality has existed since the dawn of man; no one and nothing is turning people gay, they, from birth, are attracted to the same sex. It's not a "defect" in the way that a car from the factory has a broken door lock because a flawless version of the car would have all locks working.

Evolution isn't a means to an end - it isn't a continuous refinement that leads to the perfect species. It's an explanation as to why average traits change over time, sometime for the better. Perhaps homosexuality *is* a refinement trait introduced by our genome as a population control mechanism? Who knows.