[J m HofMarN]

One thing that always bothers me, which you brought up with the abortion comments, was that people actually have to say "well, what about in cases of rape or incest?" As though, ok, under normal circumstances a woman shouldnt be allowed the right to decide what to do with her own body, but assuming she's raped or homocested, then it's ok. I dont get that. It's like saying people should only have the right to vote in cases of rape or incest.

Also, I hear the pills that mother gives you don't do anything at all.

[civilian_number_two]

Yeah well I personally would rather they back the question up. Rather than assume that sex education will make young girls promiscuous (it won't; trust me on this), why don't they have the following exchange?

"We should not have sex education because it is immoral to have sex education."

"Well what about for cases of girls who without it will become pregnant at 16?"

"Well, ok, in those cases, sure."

Right there, that exchange alone would cut abortion figures in half. Also you'd know for sure that the girls signing up for sex ed were whores, so ... win-win.

[J m HofMarN]

I think Deuacon is actually a "heterosexual supremacist" and recently showed up in Maryland to argue against gay marriage and Commander Data. Why he is arguing that gay marriage will, in a hundred or so years, lead to people marrying artifically intelligent androids, I have no idea, but thats ridiculous speculation even for a barely topical slippery slope argument. Maybe someone asked him if he thinks it's Westernized to attend a public beheading.

http://cosmiclog.msn...-robot-marriage

Regardless, I really want to read a copy of the minutes from the state legislature.

[civilian_number_two]

I couldn't finish watching that. I got as far as "you laugh, but it's true."

Yeah, Star Trek is true!

I worry less about people wanting to marry their androids than I do about people wanting to marry their anthropomorphic dragons, or singing teapots, or talking gargoyles. Because those things exist! It's true! Watch any Disny movie! It's only a matter of time now before the legislation starts! We need to ban gay marriage before human/gargoyle marriage rears its poisonous head!

This post has been edited by civilian_number_two: 15 February 2011 - 02:45 AM

[J m HofMarN]

Funny, I was just watching the last part of Gargoyles season 2, and I hadnt even thought of how the romance between Goliath and Elisa might apply to the gay marriage debate. But you're right, it's true!

[civilian_number_two]

Yeah I just would have asked that the last bit be read out loud. "Star Trek." "You laugh but it's true!" and then I would have repeatedly asked him things like "So do you believe that Star Trek is true? What about Buffy the Vampire Slayer? Also, where do you stand on the truth/fiction of say, Babylon 5?" If I wanted to be slightly charitable, I'd have asked him whether he understood the notion of a Morality Play and whether he thought Star Trek was really just about completely accurate predictions of the future (!!!) or whether, maybe, when there's a planet ruled by women and they treat men like possessions, if maybe the writers weren't after something else there. But probably I would just have been laughing so openly and aggressively that they'd have to throw me out. The "Star Trek" attack on gay marriage should become legend; let's work on that. This guy is a hero for both sides.

[J m HofMarN]

I am kinda surprised this hasnt turned into somewhat of a meme, kind of like Miss Teen South Carolina or something. I'm kind of curious as to why the guy went on about Star Trek TNG in the first place. Is it known for robotic relations? Wouldnt a reference to Bicentennial Man have been [vaguely] more on topic? Did he confuse Data with Captain Kirk?

And yeah, the next time I'm in an argument I'm damn sure going to try to apply the Star Trek attack somehow. It's good to add a new tactic to my repertoire - the iroquis communalismist defense has been getting too much use.

[civilian_number_two]

I just love it. No, see, we have no argument right now for why we don't like this thing, or whatever, but um, there's gonna be, just gotta be a downside. "Like, folk'll wanna marry they sista or some'at. Or, shit, I dunno, how bout ducks? What if'n a feller wants to marry a duck? Ok, ok, that's all gettin ridiculed perty hard ... oh I know, what about robots!"

This stuff was discussed of course in Asimov's Robot series, and hence its bastard stepchild, the Data character in Star Trek. Naturally when those writers took on the idea, they were talking about us, here and now. Star Trek with a more general question of identity, and a throwback to times of himan property ownership, while Asimov was referring to more recent miscegenation laws in America. Neither storyline delved into the gay marriage argument (though Trek should have, since human property and miscegenation was over and done), so this guy's doing it for us.

I think its failure to become a meme is it's just too stupid to watch all the way through. Another possibility, and I shudder to think it, is that the gay community are split on whether their argument needs to be a libertarian one. No, it doesn't. I have seen articles written by gays men saying that if they expect society to honour gay marriage then the gay community will have to back religious polygamist communities. No they will not. It is not a libertarian argument focusing on the idea that anyone can do as they please, so long as they hurt noone or any of that Wicca. It is gay marriage, full stop. Either these are legitimate human relationships, and they should be honoured as such, or they are not. Honouring them does not mean that we need to honour incest, or man-boy love, or duck-fucking, or marrying toasters, or whatever. The day comes that society considers those sorts of relationships to have a legitimate place, then discuss marriage at that time. But for now we're talking about a real community of real people who clearly want to marry and whom we have accepted as members of our society. Homosexual love is no longer illegal. That's the argument.

Of course when we get robots that can feel love, someone is going to raise this argument. Of course that will happen, in the unlikely case that the robots are possible. This guy is presenting this as a some harbinger of doom. I don' see why not. Rather than be amazed that we can even imagine a future where humaniform robots are self-aware and capable of abstract thought and emotion, he's worried about two dudes kissing. "You honna! We might, one day, dunno, mebbe two hunnit yeeas away, have robots! So, what then, huh? We can't let these faggits hook up!"

Anyway I am going to link it on my facebook page. Let's roll this ball.

[Zatoichi]

I'm gone for a month and its gone to roboticest. Or would that more properly be androidicest? I don't think you're supposed to do those sorts of things with a phone. 5 bucks says it voids the warranty.

[J m HofMarN]

The only problem with the Star Trek attack on gay marriage aside from that it implies once again that two guys or two girls who want to marry = a guy wanting to marry an inanimate object, thus challenging even the basic humanity of homosexuals, is that this wild speculation on the future is easily countered: Well, OK, assuming Commander Data wants to get fully functional, the Borg will come and kill him. I would truly like to hear a counter-argument from a Trekky though, because I'm sure it would fit in a great deal of speculation on what sex with data would be like, and the consequences thereof, and any starfleet directives pertaining to such.

[civilian_number_two]

Not sure where you're going with that Borg reference, since Data had nothing to do with the Borg. Data got it on with Tasha Yar in the second episode of TNG. He was described as "fully functional." This may have been a nod to Asimov's Androids of Dawn, which has a woman enter a consensual sexual relationship with a "fully functional" android. This is clearly something we need to be worried about, since human-like androids are just around the corner, and people will want to marry them (not just have sex with them). And the only way to stop people from wanting to marry robots is to outlaw gay marriage.

This post has been edited by civilian_number_two: 17 March 2011 - 05:47 PM

[J m HofMarN]

Where I'm going with it is obvious. It's foolish to believe that the slope goes gay marriage - beasiality - sex with commander Data amd just ends there. No, gay marriage will lead directly to Star Trek TNG, and Commander Data is a PART of that, but I think the Borg is a bigger threat. So, this guy's argument is flawed on that grounds alone. Gay marriage needs to be outlawed so that the Borg won't assimilate our planet.

[Gobbler]

Bah, let's just avoid this alltogether by avoiding each other and becoming a race of self-replicating hermits. In Space!

[J m HofMarN]

I just watched the video again... The guy later starts going on about The Lion King and holding up an Ankh that he smuggled in for no logical reason... Do they just let homeless people come talk to their general assembly sometimes?

[Otal Nimrodi]

J m HofMarN, on 14 February 2011 - 03:07 AM, said:

I think Deuacon is actually a "heterosexual supremacist" and recently showed up in Maryland to argue against gay marriage and Commander Data. Why he is arguing that gay marriage will, in a hundred or so years, lead to people marrying artifically intelligent androids, I have no idea, but thats ridiculous speculation even for a barely topical slippery slope argument. Maybe someone asked him if he thinks it's Westernized to attend a public beheading.

If in a 100 years we have artificially intelligent androids capable of fully reasonable thinking the way that any other person can, I totally think we should be able to marry them the way we would any other person.