Those Astonishing Heteros

I did not see that. I'll have a look.

Oh really ? Because they're gay then ?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Where ? Certainly not in this thread..

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Selective Justice...

you do have selective view

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Whoa. Are you saying that aesthetic considerations do not/should not have any relevance in the selection of potential mates?
That those same considerations, subconscious or not, play no part in the evolutionary process?

For what reason? You're going to have to justify that.

That applies to everyone, doesn't it.
What do you think the "traditionalist" will look like in a century or so?

Those who don't care enough always will, when confronted by those who do.
If you hammer an issue long enough, eventually you will get what you want through sheer bloodymindedness.

Quoting this merely because I like it. It applies to aspects of human interaction reaching far beyond the scope of this thread alone.
Question is, are you aware of that?

 

Dude, the intent is not the same..

 

summary:i had no idea of the scope of dragon's oddness until assembling this. there's just so many levels of retardedness. i gave up addressing all the flaws/issues when i realised the magnitude of that task.

yeah i bet if tom wasn't around, it would have been one orgy after another. funnily enough, the same thing happened to me: the hottest chicks in the grade were generally interested in other guys. we differ where you decided to blame the gays.

i doubt he was a filthy and a homo, in the words of peter griffin: "Gays... are a very clean people. And they've been that way ever since they came over to this country from France".

if you can't win a woman's affections when the only competition is gay men, maybe its you.

wow, that'd make me hate the gays too! have you considered he was a confused teenager? have you considered that all he was doing was talking to people and you're vilifying him for it?

that's like saying "because of retards, i had to endure being called a retard".

i give up. i'm just assembling your posts to make it easier for others to read.

you're oblivious.

 

I'm allowed to say they're filthy, it's like when black people call each other the N word, they're my people *thumps chest*.

 

Not convicted yet

Hasn't been convicted yet. The incident was June 3. The arrest was likely the next day, by the sound of it. Which would put his arraignment somewhere around June 5-8. He has likely pleaded not guilty. His first pretrial hearing would then be around June 22, and the lawyers will tell the court that they have or have not settled on a plea agreement. If they have not worked out a plea agreement, a trial date will be set, and the clock on evidentiary hearings and jury selection will be worked out then.

That's an approximate map based on the idea that arraignment is supposed to take place within 48-72 hours after charges are filed. And with something like this, the prosecutor would charge the next day. The court would hope to have a pretrial hearing within two weeks of a not guilty plea.

I'll see what I can find for follow up, but today's the Solstice Parade, so I'll be out for a while.

As to genuine mental illness and convictions? I don't know. Juries and mental illness are a strange combination in our courts.

 

Heterosupremacist...no way...that is one of the stupidest terms I've ever heard. A term that demonizes straight people, bravo.

This is a really tired argument. Gay marriage, huh? I seriously want to ask a few gay people how they feel about not being able to get married.

-So you love each other, right?

"Yes"

-And you want to get married?

"Yes, but its illegal."

-Well, couldn't you have your own ceremony?

"Well yeah we could."

-Then why don't you? Why do you need some kind of certification saying how much you love each other? Do you really need someone else's or (for christ's sakes) the state's approval for you guys to be together?

Are the financial benefits of marriage that good? Why does anyone need to be "officially" married?

 

If its about religion, as an atheist, why was I allowed to get married? Do Christians have an issue with me getting married? Is that an affront to their religion?
If not, then why can't a same sex couple get married in front of a judge? It has nothing to do with religion. A marriage has NOTHING to do with religion. My husband and I have talked more about money than we have ever talked about god.

 

Maybe I'm on his ignore list or something. I wanted to see what he'd say about the girls choosing the guy in the Camaro.

Or maybe I'm not deferential enough.

 

how else would you categorize people who think heteros are better than gays? imo, ur argument is "you should call someone who hates blacks a racist, cos that's offensive". call a spade a fucking shovel. i suppose for the sake of political correctness one might use "people who respectfully consider gays as inferior".

cos its a step towards equality. the only reason gay marriage isn't happening is homophobia, and its easier to identify gays as inferior when they don't get the same rights. its a cycle.

 

they're a virus that needs to be eliminated. its called ivf people, if you want to reproduce like the rest of animal kingdom and not distinguish yourself as a human being, just stay out of australia. there's a time and place for everything, and heterosexuality's has come and gone.

 

It seems to me that a homosexual relationship is the same as a heterosexual relationship; sometimes they work out - other times they don't.

In a sense being permitted to marry a person should not matter. Marriage in our world is the ultimate choice of commitment to a person, but often it does not result in total commitment.

In your heart you know if you want to be with someone for the rest of your life. You know if you want to be exclusive with that person. You know you want to share your whole self with that one person (and possible children in the future) for the rest of your life.

So why should a legal document matter? Unless it is the legal perks of heterosexual marriage that you really want.

 

So I'm the only homophobe at sciforums?
I have to say, what an enlightened community, I'm impressed.

But still scared of queers.

 

Not better but I think Heterosexuals have had a distinct DNA advantage since they were more likely to procreate which is probably a more important reason to marry than religion; its for the kids.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Modern procreative means allow lesbians to be fertilized by some donor, men can adopt or they can simply close their eyes and bear through the old fashioned way. With all these reproductive options while being in a same sex relationship marriage will naturally be more of an issue though I don't mean to suggest that its the only reason why they want to marry.

Why they want to marry is beyond me but hey, whatever. I have never thought of it as much of an issue either way. It should be allowed just so that people can move on to really important issues. I generally think of this as a luxury issue.

 

Notes Around

Well, let us reconsider the point again:

We might consider the "bitchin' Camaro", for instance. Many unfortunate men, and I am included in this number, remain puzzled at how one's car speaks to mate selection. Certainly, in the case of a new Lexus or Mercedes, it might speak to economic issues in much the same way as the "bulge in the pants" that really counts, the one caused by a fat wallet. But in the case of a '79 Camaro? It seems an aesthetic consideration, and one that is self-centered as opposed to anthropological or evolutionary.​

Aesthetic considerations do play a part, but in what way and to what degree?

And how about the fine ass (any gender) or the nice rack (women)? How does this play into any sense of mate selection that is not purely aesthetic? In the case of breasts, someone might postulate something about motherhood, but that is superstition insofar as a nice rack does not necessarily translate to good milk for the offspring, and, furthermore, it is not exactly rare to find a man impressed by silicone implants. Beauty does not necessarily translate to anything more than an aesthetic advantage; we might recall that Western standards of beauty, even into the twentieth century, included some traits that happened to come about through what we would conventionally describe as incest. And, incidentally, it is worth noting that much of European incest came about because the nobility, unwilling to marry a lower socioeconomic class, often became so limited that cousins were the most appealing option.​

An aesthetic consideration that also represents something more fundamental does play a part in the evolutionary process. Most people are not inclined to blend their genes with the village Quasimodo, for instance. But neither is it always so blatant. In another discussion, about a month after I wrote that post, I considered a certain facet of the point:

Yes, there is an aspect of advertising for a mate, but the question as such fails to account for what we might call the "Blue Oyster effect"; that is, a sweaty, bearded, even ugly top is sometimes desirable. And heterosexuals are not immune to this idea, either, although my own failure to find the charm or appeal in the "Slim Shady" look does not make for any definitive judgment. Rather, it is enough to point out that the appearance of sleaze, poverty, and even danger, is sometimes considered desirable. It is hard to account for desiring someone who looks like a reckless, unwashed biker if the appeal is genetic insofar as we might expect to desire soft hands, a three-piece suit, and other symbols of success in the culture.​

Aesthetics might play an evolutionary role, but they also might not. Or, more accurately, yes, they play an evolutionary role insofar as one choosing to weaken the next generation of their genetic lineage certainly reflects nature about its selection. The aesthetics of a Lexus or Mercedes represent, in American culture, the appearance of success. The aesthetics of a '79 Camaro, to the other, represent a self-centered focus insofar as those things really are about pride, and also stupidity, as however nicely one might restore such a car, it's still a Chevy.

I would think it fairly self-evident: A gay marriage will join two disparate families. An incestuous marriage will not.

Or, if that's not clear enough, try this, from a 2003 episode of The Mark Steel Lectures:

As Darwin pieced his theory together, it caused him enormous anxiety; he became obsessive. For example, he used a similar method to the one he'd used to work out natural selection to decide whether or not to get married. He wrote out two columns headed, "Marry", and "Not Marry". Under "Marry" was,

Constant companion and friend in old age; better than a dog, anyhow .... Charms of music and female chit-chat .... Intolerable to think of spending one's life like a neutered bee.​

A biologist's way of saying, "Well, at least I'll get me end away on a regular basis." Under "Not Marry" was,

Conversation of clever men at clubs, perhaps quarreling .... Not forced to visit relatives.​

Which may be why he married his cousin. He was thinking, "Well think of the time I'm saving in visiting relatives. 'Cause her relatives are the same as mine. I'm laughing!"​

When your mother-in-law is also your aunt? You were already connected to her through family.

Applies to everyone how? If a homosexual doesn't like being called flamboyant or melodramatic? Sure. If a homosexual doesn't like being called a faggot, or compared to a child molester or bestialist?

I'm not sure what traditionalists will look like in a century. Part of me wonders if we're going to be having logical discussions about the merits of having sex with goats, since so many homophobes seem to think either that, or polygamy, or incest is next, but they're separate arguments. Polygamy, I think, is an argument yet to come. Incest will probably be laughed out of the public discourse. And bestiality makes no sense in that context whatsoever, as animals cannot give proper consent to engage in sexual intercourse with a human being.

Go tell it in Sand Point. The racists lost, and are still losing. And they can be as figuratively or literally as bloodyminded as they want, and they're still not going to win.

As far as I can tell, yes. After all, I share this world with redemptive monotheists and the Republican Party. As much as I like to believe in the rational and intellectual potential of the species, there are glaring reminders to the other. And I don't have to look far abroad to find examples; many exist in my own neighborhood.

Hardly. But there was, as I noted in my response to Asguard, a Solstice Parade today.

• • •​

Are you suggesting that all heterosexuals are heterosupremacists?

And a disorder called "ego-dystonic homosexuality" appeared in and disappeared from DSM-III in the 1980s. Ego-dystonic homosexuality was marked by a dearth of heterosexual arousal and emotional distress over one's own homosexual inclinations. In other words, a self-hating gay. An ego-dystonic homosexual would tend to be heterosupremacist, which means that even homosexuals can be heterosupremacist.

I would refer you to my December response to Prospero, specifically the second section considering validation of love.

The certification, as such, brings much to the relationship. Taxes are a fairly small issue, as far as I'm concerned. If we wish to stick with the superficial, I'll also point out a post that is over four and a half years old, written for the thread this one is designed to accompany. As I recall, I rather enjoyed writing that one.

• • •​

You know, I actually liked Awakenings. I thought Robin Williams did very well in that one. But Patch Adams ... the script struck me as simplistic and even patronizing. Williams did the best he could with it, but that one should have been shelved before a single frame was ever shot. We went and saw it as a family thing over whatever holiday because, frankly, our mother would not enjoy the same kind of films my brother and I do. And, you know, I've seen some pretty good films over time with my parents. A Test of Love (a.k.a. Annie's Coming Out), for instance, the essential story of Anne McDonald and Rosemary Crossley. I was eleven when that came out. It was a benchmark for me, one of the first real dramas that ever held me truly spellbound. (I had seen A Death in Canaan, a 1978 murder melodrama, on television not long before.) And my dad and I saw Proof (directed by Jocelyn Moorhouse and starring a pre-Romper Stomper Russell Crowe) and Passed Away (a jaw-dropping cast written and directed by Charlie Peters) together when I was nineteen. But my poor mother ... how many Star Wars and James Bond films did she sit through with us? Or Indiana Jones? Or Jurassic Park? It didn't seem like a whole lot to sit through Patch Adams. And, hell, I'd liked Awakenings. Sadly, though, Patch Adams was one of those films where I'd like those ninety minutes or two hours, or whatever it was, back for everyone in the family. And the cinema.

Oh, well.

I couldn't believe it when one of the married men brought Forgetting Sarah Marshall to watch on the annual "guys' weekend". But we also suffered through Death to Smoochie for his benefit. And Robin Williams is entitled to make a bad film every now and then. Just like Jim Carrey is entitled to make a good one ... um ... once? Twice? Whatever. Something like that.
____________________

Notes:

Mark Steel. "Charles Darwin". The Mark Steel Lectures. British Broadcasting Company. Originally broadcast November 4, 2003.

 

up until ivf, all homosexuals have descended from heteros. so i don't know how heteros have some dna advantage. regardless, i don't think sexual preferences are linked to a person's fitness. i don't understand how your argument works.

Originally Posted by Tiassa
Just like Jim Carrey is entitled to make a good one ... um ... once? Twice? ”

twice. ace ventura 1, me myself and irene. however, movies i enjoyed seeing him in, which weren't necessarily good movies, include: lemony snicket, eternal sunshine, the grinch, truman show, dumb and dumber, the mask, ace ventura 2. he's like the designated hitter of acting, he excels when well type cast.

 

I go with ... oh, hey, it's twice.

I go with once. Lots of people tell me the original Ace Ventura was good. And, sure, it was funny, but as I've admitted before, one of my favorite movies is The Lost Boys. That I like it doesn't change the fact that it was a horrible film. I think the same applies to Ace Ventura.

Ironically, the only movie I've really liked him in was the Lemony Snicket film.

I tried not to care about him one way or the other, but Liar, Liar was such an awful film that I was offended at the notion that he got so damn much money for it (at least $20m).

Oh, wait ... there is a second good film Carrey has done. Man on the Moon.

 

Oh dear.
I just wrote a reply which near gave me carpal tunnel syndrome. A Cecile B De Mille scaled typefest.

Had all sorts of evolutionary theories, personal experiences, daylight savings, the odd mild insult and a silver Thunderbird in it. I was quite proud.

And then, when closing the tabs I was using for reference before hitting "post reply", I closed the wrong one.
So that, as they say, is that.