Looks like we need to export Mad Men to Japan.

>> ^gorillaman:

@Unaccommodated
Modern marriage has nothing whatsoever to do with the production of children.
Marriage can only be worthwhile as a private contract contrived to serve the happiness of its participants. Its legitimacy should not be determined by the number of similar arrangements or the prevalence of comparable relationships in nature.
The biological source of our sociosexual proclivities is only a starting point, the raw material to be combined with our culture and worked by our intellect to produce something of greater value. Humanity has the power to surpass nature.
Homosexuality crossing a threshold of acceptability now that it's practiced by a significant enough percentage of the population is an idea that ought to be offensive to pretty much everybody.


Marriage is FAR, FAR from simply a private contract, it is a public occasion. While the participants in the marriage may make promises to each other, its always done with public input. When people get eloped it often hurts other people in the family for not being able to give their input. Marriage and its public nature, is a human universal. In western Christianity it comes with the portion of 'speak now or forever hold your peace'. In other situations it can be as simple as leaving your belongings in front of someone else's dwelling for a day in the public eye.

Its very clear you think humans are removed from 'nature'. We are not. We do not transcend or surpass our nature, we are who we are. The nature that created your body is the same nature that created your brain and the way you think. Of course other things affect the way you think, but you can't get passed your human way of understanding things. Our Biology affects are behavior and culture, until the point where our culture influences our biology. That is why only some cultures, with a practice of raising cows, people can drink milk as adults. We will never become removed from this cycle.

Homosexuality has had varying amounts of acceptance at different places and different times. Its not only a modern development. I am saying that homosexuality makes up a significant amount of the human population, and probably always has far into our past. I am not saying 'Oh, I guess now it should be accepted', I am saying 'Why should it be anything other than accepted?'

@gorillaman
First, Human sexual relationships in a democratic society should be, at its heart, about consent. That is why RAPE is RAPE and sexual abuse of children is ABUSE. So that rules out animals, although some eat animals we still are expected to treat them humanely. We can't just sexually coerce them.

Second, Marriage usually deals with socially sanctioned semi-permanent relationships for the purposes of assigning responsibilities for having sex with intention to procreate and raising children. Therefore you can't marry an inanimate thing. It also takes two gametes to make a new human. If it took any number of gametes to do that, then we'd be talking about a different situation. But two individuals are directly needed to create a child, and therefor should be the basis of any discussion of marriage. A pair. Our biology is the reason why 'free love' doesn't work. Despite whatever anecdotal evidence given, the large scale practices and ideas of swingers and free love are dead. We are ultimately programmed to serially be looking for ONE other person to aid in the creation of a child. Extra pair copulations (cheating) happen, there is no denying that, but its the exception that makes the rule. People break up and become angry over it. It can kill relationships, it is seen as a betrayal. Now, I believe homosexuality is significant enough (10%-12% of the human population) to be granted the same rights of marriage as heterosexual people, even though currently it has little to with offspring - except for adoption. While the academic debate on whether homosexuality is nature or nurture is far from over (Its probably both). They, being humans, still feel the same biological desire to pair off with someone, just like anyone else.


Now when the time comes that children can be created out of more than two gametes, I'd be willing to reassess. Also, if you want to leave marriage up to other institutions aside from the state - I'm fine with that too, just don't expect things to actually change.

@gorillaman
Being against polygamy is not bigoted. Humans pair off, its what we do. But Polyandry (one female - multiple males) doesn't work except in a few places like Nepal and Bhutan, where there is little arable land. But the men are ALWAYS brothers, there is no other way it would work (also its a dying practice). Polygyny (One Male - Multiple females) doesn't work either, because then you get an excess of poor, young, bored undersexed men, who become serious problems. Infact, the Warren Jeffs FLDS cult would evict 'misbehaving' young men because there weren't enough ladies to go around. These kids were given no chance. As far as homosexual groupings of more then two? No one is asking for that, many are quite content pairing off with one other person. There is also no historical or ethnographic evidence for it either. And as far as marrying anything nonhuman, that is wrong simply because the other thing is not sentient (in the way we are) and doesn't know what its agreeing to. I think you may be one of those dangerous people only took ONE Anthropology class, and has otherwise missed the boat.

Couldn't watch it after the dumbass bitched about the cold. No wonder a woman didn't want you.

Ever heard of practicing? People aren't born knowing how to plow sidewalks.

Not her fault. You all failed to pay attention. The dude was going the wrong way into oncoming traffic. Driver's fault, not hers.

AHHHHH AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAH!

The squatting in a house in Minneapolis was the house of one of my Anthropology professors.

I can't wait to look back at this in 50 years.

Classy handwipe

Hrrmm, doesn't feel right. "Restore rule of law"? I've always seen Anonymous as Chaotic Neutral, someone's not playing their character right.

At the end he's drinking New Glarus! YAY BEER!

I think everyone is WAY OVERREACTING. Yea, there some damage, and I'm sure the state will cover it. But they're all freaking out like its the end of the world. Obviously the bulldozer was stuck, and they were trying to get it out. Which would he more likely lose his job over, leaving it stuck and being out one badly needed bulldozer, or smash-up the back of some NY prick's SUV?

Poor Guy, he looks like hes gunna drop at any second. This sounds really suspicious though, I don't know how he got the nomination. He can barely speak in an interview. He keeps touching his neck, which I'd wager hes lying. I also think he really regrets his decision to go through with this.