[paladin]

Terez;337262 said:

Aren't humans supposed to be better than animals?

humans are animals. just sentient. noone has ever shown otherwise.

there is a romantic theory that sentient beings in the universe would be peaceful and tolerant and that human society should evolve into that somehow as knowledge of the universe is attained, but that is just fiction. it totally ignores history

[Raymond Luxury Yacht]

I think the discussion has gotten to the point where people are taking it personally, and we need to let it cool down a bit. No one is going to convince anyone to change their mind. People are getting fired up.

[Terez]

paladin;337280 said:

humans are animals. just sentient. noone has ever shown otherwise.

there is a romantic theory that sentient beings in the universe would be peaceful and tolerant and that human society should evolve into that somehow as knowledge of the universe is attained, but that is just fiction. it totally ignores history

I fail to see what you're getting at here. If you're saying that humans can't be better than animals, then how do you justify imposing your morals on the rest of society?

[Illuyankas]

paladin;337280 said:

humans are animals. just sentient. noone has ever shown otherwise.

there is a romantic theory that sentient beings in the universe would be peaceful and tolerant and that human society should evolve into that somehow as knowledge of the universe is attained, but that is just fiction. it totally ignores history

I'd prefer to reword that as sentient beings in the universe should and can be peaceful and tolerant and that human society should and can evolve into that somehow as knowledge of the universe is attained - and hopefully universal living standards are increased, which will be completely feasible if involving off topic discussion about blagging vast amounts of resources from space, so we'll leave that subject alone while in this thread - which will be perfectly possible in the near future, if not already so.

Also, why are you disregarding sentience like it's useless?

[Nequam]

Morgoth;337195 said:

Also, I suppose I should change my wording somewhat. I'm at work and thus not really in a position to consider my words carefully, though I should in a debate such as this. Repulse is too strong a word. I dislike it. It makes me uncomfortable. But repulsed is not an accurate description. Sorry

That makes a lot more sense now.

Xander;337429 said:

I don't get why people have such a problem with homosexuality or the fact that any homosexual wants a kid. Why the hell do you care? Who are you or anybody else to tell someone they can't be happy? Why does it matter that two men or two women want to get married? Marriage was something created by people....it's not some sacred right between a man and a woman.

There's no evidence that suggests a kid growing up in a same sex marriage household is going to have any more problems than one that isn't. Why are people so afraid of this issue?

First off: I was wondering when you would show up. (I remembered somwhere you saying your brother was gay.)

Secondly: Yeah!


As to the whole thing with what paladin started: I think he used that animal statement just trying to explain why this is even an issue. Humans are are animals. But we can be "better" than animals, simply because of our intelligence. I just thought it seemed like people were about to attack paladin even though he was just saying (I think) that we are all animals really. It didn't realy have much to do with what he thinks, and if it is right or not.

[paladin]

Terez;337415 said:

I fail to see what you're getting at here. If you're saying that humans can't be better than animals, then how do you justify imposing your morals on the rest of society?

humans can be "better" than animals, but they also can't completely get rid of base animal/mammal instincts. some you can choose to ignore, but ignoring isnt the same as saying the instinct isnt there.

i dont impose my morals on anyone. ive never weighed in on this thread with what i believe. i could care less about gay marriage as long as laws are evenly applied.

as far as adopting children, while i believe children need both father and mother figures(and im sorry, a bulldyke or a feminine male are not father or mother figures respectively) in order to properly develop, we allow single parents full rights so i see no reason to restrict homosexual parents. that doesnt stop me from feeling bad for the kid for not having a traditional home environment, just like it doesnt stop me from feeling bad if a kid only has a dad or a mom.

[Raymond Luxury Yacht]

Well, the ideal situation would be for there t be no orphans at all, and every kid would live with their parents. Not the real world though.

[Shinrei]

I too believe mankind must (and has) rise above their base natural instincts. Be "better" than animals as it were.

However, that argument easily becomes "when humans do XYZ they are unnatural." Or more extremely, "humans are the cause of all that is unnatural". Regardless of our attempts to raise ourselves above animals, we are not aliens dropped onto this planet from outer space. If we build large polluted cities, wage war on each other, blast off into space, explore the ocean bottom, invent sliced-bread etc., this does not make us, or our creations "unnatural."

In fact it can be argued that everything we do, mistakes, innovations, short-sightedness, are what it means to be a natural human.

[Astra]

Any gays among posters in this topic?

[Nequam]

Shinrei no Shintai;337784 said:

we are not aliens dropped onto this planet from outer space.

That isn't what Tom Cruise told me.

Quote

Any gays among posters in this topic?

RLY pointed out that I might be.

...okay enough little jokes.
I for one don't jump onto the unnatural bandwagon. I pretty much would agree with Shin that you could argue that everything humans do is natural.

I also think that generaly the best environment for raising children is with a mother and a father. That doesn't mean that a gay couple or a single parent couldn't do a cracker-jack job of it either though.

[Terez]

paladin;337493 said:

humans can be "better" than animals, but they also can't completely get rid of base animal/mammal instincts. some you can choose to ignore, but ignoring isnt the same as saying the instinct isnt there.

I still don't see your point. Are you trying to say that we can't overcome it and therefore we shouldn't try?

[paladin]

i dont even know what point you are trying to make terez. my only point is that humans are animals, and no matter what we do we will never be able to totally deny our instincts as animals on the whole(which can include the need to procreate through a traditional penis/vagina relationship).

people have "free will" and can try to do anything they please, so im not saying people shouldnt try to do things. but while each person can seemingly ignore certain things(or different personal histories have stressed particular traits), on the whole there are still animal instincts in humanity that will influence decisions in groups of people