Law: How is gay different than (_blank_)?

[HydrogenBond]

I was not trying to take a natural/unnatural position. I am of the belief there are both natural and unnatural gays in culture. The natural gays would still be gay in stormy weather even with homophobes walking and hunting about. The unnatural gays are the "sunshine gays" that appear when the political climate is sunny and mild. I have no problem with the natural gays. They should be treated with respect. But the culturally created gays are a different matter. Nowadays it is hard to tell the difference, since there is no fool proof test and too many so-called experts assume both are the same.

[TheBigDog]

That seems to be the issue here. You associate homosexuality with the following:

Hampsters eat their young. Monkeys engage in sex across ages, sexes and family lines. Pigs wallow in their own filth... as justification for human violence and murder?

No, you are putting words into my mouth. I was countering the argument itself. Here is the full exchange...

Yes, Igby...............here in Virginia, I get to vote against an amendment so heinously immoral that it would allow the tearing apart of committed, loving relationships with the denial of the basic rights that are self evident.

 

The right says gay marriage is "un-natural", ..........................well they should read this:

 

 

http://www.world-science.net/otherne...ay-animals.htm

 

 

Let's all go out and have "dominance behavior"

Thanks. Next time I need justification for my behavior I can use your example and just reach into the animal kingdom. Pardon me while I fling my feces at passers by. Perfectly normal and acceptable.

 

Bill (please note, this is a condemnation of the argument)

That's actually pretty irrelevant. The animal examples address the argument that homosexuality is "unnatural." The judgement of whether it's acceptable is actually a separate issue - but "unnatural" can no longer be used as a reason why it SHOULD be unacceptable.

 

I doubt anyone would accuse you of behaving "unnaturally" were you throw your feces at passers by. This is unacceptable not because it's "not natural" but because it's unsanitary, and people don't like to get poop on them.

 

TFS

To begin with, one would need to accept the science of the article in question at face value, and I don't. From my knowledge of biology Pet*ter Boeck*man is making an error in his interpretations of his observations. And from the descriptive language he used in the article posted I would guess that he has a specific agenda that his is presenting. His convenient reclassification of dominance as gay should not go unquestioned. And exactly how female ducks have lesbian relationships escapes me.

 

It must be noted that in many animals, the males that do not win the dominance war have no opportunity for sexual gratification other than the ritual dominance over other unsuccessful males. It should also be noted that much of the sex of any kind that happens in the animal kingdom would be classified as rape among humans.

 

Second, while the article makes the point that there is "gay sex" in nature, and therefore nullifies the argument that "gay" is "unnatural", my point is that each species is unique. And that commonality of a behavior across several species is not indicative of it existing in any specific species. So I reiterate; the argument is flawed.

 

That being said, I do not believe that homosexual sex is "unnatural" and I have never indicated otherwise.

Have you ever loved a brother? A friend? What if that love were just a little bit more intense? Would it then be akin to hampsters eating their young, monkeys throwing ****, or murder?

 

 

Humans are animal. Saying we're not is unjustified self-reinforcing arrogance.

Humans are indeed animal. But our minds separate us from all other animals. I cannot look around me at the scope of human achievement and deny that by our minds we are separate from all other animals. In fact our superior minds have brought us to the top of the food chain in such an extreme way that there is no comparison. I am not just an animal, I am the BEST animal. That is both justified and arrogant.

I sure hope you're not referring to people with darker skin when you refer to monkeys above...

Let me work from the premise that this is your sense of humor at work. HAHA. Where exactly did I begin to show the signs of racism that lead to this jocularity? :shrug:

 

Bill

[TheBigDog]

Yes, Igby...............here in Virginia, I get to vote against an amendment so heinously immoral that it would allow the tearing apart of committed, loving relationships with the denial of the basic rights that are self evident.

In reading the legislation in question I have two comments.

 

1) I would vote against this because it should not be a constitutional issue.

2) It actually does nothing to but take the existing law and put the language into the constitution. In effect, it is a zero change of current rights.

 

Bill

[InfiniteNow]

Let me work from the premise that this is your sense of humor at work. HAHA.

Absolutely. Good premise. :eek_big:

 

Where exactly did I begin to show the signs of racism that lead to this jocularity?

It was intended more as hyperbole... or an analogy which would quickly summarize my point and bring your focus of the issue to the perspective I hold.

 

 

Having a tough time understanding the other side of the issue outside of the terms hatred and ignorance,

[pgrmdave]

I am curious as to how this part of Virginia law is Constitutional:

Any marriage entered into by persons of the same sex in

another state or jurisdiction shall be void in all respects in

Virginia and any contractual rights created by such

marriage shall be void and unenforceable.

 

because of this part of the United States Constitution (Article IV Section I):

 

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

[TheBigDog]

I am curious as to how this part of Virginia law is Constitutional:

 

 

because of this part of the United States Constitution (Article IV Section I):

It is Constitutional in that it has yet to be challenged in court and determined otherwise. One of the weaknesses of our system is that the legislatures are not required to have the language of law comply with the Constitution. You could pass anything if it gets enough votes. And it would remain the enforced law of the land until ruled un Constitutional by the courts. I have often contemplated how we could include a review process prior to legislation being passed, but I guess that is the job of the legislature. :eek_big:

 

Bill

[pgrmdave]

Hmmm...me thinks this could be fodder for yet another thread.

[Michaelangelica]

Cackleberry Egg Farm

 

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/streetstories/stories/2006/1774154.htm

--

This was a happy, then sad, story from Tasmania.

The people sounded wonderful. They didn't eat anything they named.

 

Hope they get something else going.

 

Great radio journalism (listen to it, don't read it)