• 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.

I predict beastiality will be the next boundary to be crossed

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
drebo said:
You can't enter in to a contract with a non-person regardless.

What's that have to do with beastiality?
Click to expand...

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.
 
s0me0nesmind1 said:
why the fuck did you just quote your own post to say "very well said"?

It must have been that stupid.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
Sho'Nuff said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
jlee said:
Are you implying that same-sex attraction is a defect?
Click to expand...

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.
 
SKORPI0 said:
Goat Sex.... D:

1354746741-g-4.jpg

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


this sick fuck needs to be removed from the planet. and why does the goat not have any ears?
 
Last edited:
TheFamilyMan said:
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.
Click to expand...

No. Evolution isn't a judge, it's just a process.
 
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
 
sandorski said:
No. Evolution isn't a judge, it's just a process.
Click to expand...

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?
 
sandorski said:
No. Evolution isn't a judge, it's just a process.
Click to expand...

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.
 
CZroe said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
TheFamilyMan said:
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.
Click to expand...

No. See my previous post.
 
sandorski said:
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.
Click to expand...

OK, so if you aren't playing dumb...
 
Sho'Nuff said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
KeithTalent said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
Sho'Nuff said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

KT
 
TheFamilyMan said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top