What's new
By:

So gay!!!

Civil rights have no place on any ballot. Opposing gay marriage is just another form of homophobia. Gays getting married does not affect straight people.
 
jazzman12 said:
Do you honestly believe that the old men in suits and the judges in Washington D.C. are the right people to make these type of decisions day in and day out? I'm sorry, but I do not. I feel that the American people would do a wonderful job of governing themselves if big government would get out of our way and let us do just that.
Click to expand...

Seems that even some married gays agree witcha, there, eh, 12?:

"I’d like to highlight Jonathan Rauch’s op-ed in the New York Times from a month ago. Rauch is among the most prominent advocates of same-sex marriage, and, as he discusses in his op-ed, recently entered into a same-sex marriage. But he has the intellectual clarity and integrity to recognize that the anti-Prop 8 case should fail (as well as the courage to say so):"

[T]he argument for upholding California’s gay marriage ban has merit — not because the policy is fair or wise (it isn’t) but because it represents a reasonable judgment that the people of California are entitled to make.…

Whatever the activists on both sides say, nothing in the Constitution requires the Supreme Court to short-circuit the country’s search for a new consensus, either by imposing gay marriage nationwide or by slamming the door on it with an aggressively dismissive ruling. Sometimes the right answer for the courts is to step aside and let politics do its job.
Click to expand...

https://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/242503/jonathan-rauch-anti-prop-8-case-ed-whelan
 
Beantown said:
Does that mean my wife can impregnate me?
Click to expand...

technically speaking yes. baby wouldn't survive, but if you wanted it to happen science could get'r done, and you'd probably get more tribe money too.

I'm guessing you're harboring a lot of gay feelings, that you've always punished yourself for. and basic biology (because you really haven't taken that next step in showing ur knowledging) has been the only proper justification you've come up with to bury your deep sexual desires with another man.
But that's just my basic psychology showing through.
 
The-Joker said:
I'm guessing you're harboring a lot of gay feelings, that you've always punished yourself for. and basic biology (because you really haven't taken that next step in showing ur knowledging) has been the only proper justification you've come up with to bury your deep sexual desires with another man.
But that's just my basic psychology showing through.
Click to expand...

k, surusly, r u retarded?
 
Sloanfeld said:
OMG I scrolled up and what do you know.

This ruling is terrible. Homosexuality undermines procreation. Then they will want to have their own families with adopted children. Can you imagine being raised by two mothers or two fathers? That must suck ***. Thankfully I was raised by a married mother and father and not brought into some screwed up situation whether it be this or some messed up divorced parents. Children are meant to be raised by their biological mother and father. Sucks for those of you who don't come from perfect families like I do.
Click to expand...

Not sure if you're serious or not, but just in case you are...Have you considered where most adopted children come from? Even if it were the case that being raised by 2 moms or 2 dads was a worse up bringing than being raised by a mom and a dad, it's gotta be better than where they'd be without adoption.
 
https://www.innovations-report.com/html/reports/life_sciences/report-16507.html

Sex and gender scientists explore a revolution in evolution
Darwin may have been wrong about sex. Or at least too narrow minded

At the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, leading researchers and theorists in the evolution of sexual behavior will gather to present the growing evidence that Darwin’s idea of sexual selection requires sweeping revisions.

’’I don’t have a theory to address it all by any means,’’ says Stanford biologist Joan Roughgarden, who organized the Feb. 17 symposium. ’’I’m just trying to get the extent of diversity on the table.’’

Roughgarden will present the evidence that gender is not limited to the static male/female binary and that sex can have social as well as reproductive roles. Robert Warner of the University of California-Santa Barbara will speak about fish that change sex. David Crews of the University of Texas-Austin will address the tenuous path linking genetic sex to behavior. Patricia Gowaty of the University of Georgia will present a new hypothesis on how animals select their mates. And Paul Vasey of the University of Lethbridge will discuss his research on homosexual behavior among female Japanese macaques...

...A great deal of empirical evidence exists that refutes Darwinian sexual selection. It’s difficult to tell just how many exceptions there are to the rule because observations may have been skewed by Darwinian biases, says Roughgarden.

’’The exceptions are so numerous they cry out for explanation,’’ says Roughgarden, who has outlined a stunning array of behaviors that don’t fit the mold in her upcoming book, Evolution’s Rainbow: Diversity, Gender and Sexuality in Nature and People (University of California Press, 2003).

Sex and society

Roughgarden thinks that a more comprehensive theory of sexuality should take into account social as well as sexual selection. Mating can function to build and manage relationships as well as to procreate...

...Other sexual traits, says Roughgarden, may represent a ’’market economy’’ dedicated to trading sexual opportunity for other resources. In many species, some individuals act as helpers to dominant males and reap some rewards in the process...

...Homosexual behavior is common but unexplained by Darwin. Over 300 vertebrates, including monkeys, flamingoes and male sheep, practice homosexual behavior. Homosexuality in some species appears to play a social role. For instance, bonobos (pygmy chimpanzees) will have sex with same-sex partners to calm tensions after a squabble, or to make sure that a large amount of food is shared....
Click to expand...
 
AND...

https://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/04/magazine/04animals-t.html?_r=1&ref=science

Can Animals Be Gay?
(from the New York Times - - A version of this article appeared in print on April 4, 2010, on page MM26 of the Sunday Magazine)

Young has been researching the albatrosses on Oahu since 2003; the colony was the focus of her doctoral dissertation at the University of Hawaii, Manoa, which she completed last spring. (She now works on conservation projects as a biologist for hire.) In the course of her doctoral work, Young and a colleague discovered, almost incidentally, that a third of the pairs at Kaena Point actually consisted of two female birds, not one male and one female. Laysan albatrosses are one of countless species in which the two sexes look basically identical. It turned out that many of the female-female pairs, at Kaena Point and at a colony that Young’s colleague studied on Kauai, had been together for 4, 8 or even 19 years — as far back as the biologists’ data went, in some cases. The female-female pairs had been incubating eggs together, rearing chicks and just generally passing under everybody’s nose for what you might call “straight” couples.
Click to expand...

and

Various forms of same-sex sexual activity have been recorded in more than 450 different species of animals by now, from flamingos to bison to beetles to guppies to warthogs...
Click to expand...

(followed by some rather descriptive observations, read at your own risk....LOL)

and...
Two years ago, Young decided to write a short paper with two colleagues on the female-female albatross pairs. “We were pretty careful in the original article to plainly and simply report what we found,” she said. “It’s definitely a little bit of a tricky subject, and one you want to be gentle on.” But the journal that published the paper, Biology Letters, sent out a press release a few days after the California Supreme Court legalized gay marriage. At 6 the next morning, a Fox News reporter called Young on her cellphone. The resulting story joined others, including one in this paper, and as the news ricocheted around the Internet, a stampede of online commenters alternately celebrated Young’s findings as a clear call for equality or denigrated them as “pure propaganda and selective science at its dumbest” and “an effort to humanize animals or devolve humans to the level of animals or to further an agenda.” Many pointed out that animals also rape or eat their young; was America going to tolerate that too, just because it’s “natural”?

A Denver-based publication for gay parents welcomed any and all new readers from “the extensive lesbian albatross parent community.” The conservative Oklahoma senator Tom Coburn highlighted Young’s paper on his Web site, under the heading “Your Tax Dollars at Work,” even though her study of the female-female pairs was not actually federally financed. Stephen Colbert warned on Comedy Central that “albatresbians” were threatening American family values with their “Sappho-avian agenda.” A gay rights advocate e-mailed Young, asking her to fly a rainbow flag above each female-female nest, to identify them and show solidarity.
Click to expand...

In 1999, Bagemihl published “Biological Exuberance,” a book that pulled together a colossal amount of previous piecemeal research and showed how biologists’ biases had marginalized animal homosexuality for the last 150 years — sometimes innocently enough, sometimes in an eruption of anthropomorphic disgust. Courtship behaviors between two animals of the same sex were persistently described in the literature as “mock” or “pseudo” courtship — or just “practice.” Homosexual sex between ostriches was interpreted by one scientist as “a nuisance” that “goes on and on.” One man, studying Mazarine Blue butterflies in Morocco in 1987, regretted having to report “the lurid details of declining moral standards and of horrific sexual offenses” which are “all too often packed” into national newspapers. And a bighorn-sheep biologist confessed in his memoir, “I still cringe at the memory of seeing old D-ram mount S-ram repeatedly.” To think, he wrote, “of those magnificent beasts as ‘******’ — Oh, God!”
Click to expand...

oh the horrors of those Moroccan butterflies and their declining moral standards...
 
What, that link says that sex has social meaning beyond that of just reproduction?

DUH!

Why do you think marriage exists in the first place?
 
moevillini said:
https://www.innovations-report.com/html/reports/life_sciences/report-16507.html
Click to expand...

Hmmm, Mo, says there: "But for some species, humans included, homosexual behavior may have no adaptive value at all. ’’Looking for any single conceptual framework to explain homosexual behavior is an unattainable goal,’’ says Vasey, one of the leading researchers on homosexual behavior.

Unattainable goal to explain non-adaptive homosexual behavior with a conceptual framework? Like, whooda thunk, eh?

"’’People often look to animals to decide for themselves what’s natural and what’s not natural,’’ says Vasey. ’’I don’t think that’s necessarily a good thing to do. I mean, animals engage in cannibalism and infanticide. They also don’t take care of elderly individuals. Just because animals do something doesn’t make it right or wrong.’’ Again, like, who knew, I ax ya?

Sexual selection theory helped Darwin explain many traits, especially in males, that otherwise seemed maladaptive. Many behaviors do not fit sexual selection theory, however. ’’The whole context for Darwin’s theory of sexual selection is dissolving,’’ says Roughgarden. ’’So, Darwin is incorrect in the particulars, but more importantly, [his theory of sexual selection] is inadequate even as an approach.’’ How many times have I heard that sexual behavior is determined by genes as has supposedly all been proven beyond dispute, I wonder?
 
Last edited:
moevillini said:
DUH!

So we can argue about it, here, on Jazzfanz.

DUH!!!
Click to expand...

Mo, ya know what? It aint really that cute for you to try haulin evolutionary theory into a thread that's already about homosexuals, eh? Last time that happened, probably 50-60 pages of posts come outta it. Come to think about it, you probably started all the crap that time, too. Ya just some kinda trouble-maker, like 24/7, that it?
 
Setting frameworks (conceptual or not) and the sexuality of animals aside, I want to bring light to the topic originally posted about: essentially, should homosexuals be allowed to marry? That is, can the heterosexual establishment find it in their hearts to allow the homosexual establishment the usage of a single, solitary word: marriage.

This topic has had a lot of traffic today and there have been many arguments made for and against gay marriage. I voiced my two cents, got into a relatively tense back-and-forth with dissenting opinions (mainly championed by Bean), and watched some other members give their opinions.

I've spent the intervening time reading the posts and thinking about gay marriage and have come to this conclusion: being heterosexual, it is easy for us to sit in our ivory towers and besmirch the notion of gay marriage. We simply lack the proper frame of reference to truly denounce (what I understand to be) the true and honest love two homosexuals can have for each other. Can you honestly say you'd be against gay marriage if you yourself were gay? Answer honestly, please. Again, I raise one of my original questions (which no one really ever bothered to answer)...who are we to deny homosexuals access to something as basic as the word "marriage?" How truly petty can we be that it can infuriate us to that extent? Finally, who cares what two consenting adults do behind closed doors with their clothes off; and does it really actually matter if they say they are married or not?

Bean raised the concern that biology is a trump card against allowing marriage to apply to homosexuals. "They cannot procreate, ergo they cannot enter into marriage," is a paraphrasing of his message. Isn't it a sign of intelligence to be willing to reexamine the definition of a word and evolve its meaning to be just a bit less elitist? In 1856, the Supreme Court of the US of A ruled that black people were not considered "human beings" if they were slaves. That notion sounds ludicrous, doesn't it? Well get this: we evolved the word "human" to finally include African Americans. We made progress on that day. And we made more progress today by allowing gay marriage.

Thus ends my soapbox on the issue. I promise :P
 
Hopper said:
not because the policy is fair or wise (it isn’t) but because it represents a reasonable judgment that the people of California are entitled to make
Click to expand...

The entire last segment of the decision today goes to this isue: that there is no legitimate state interest in creating a law that discriminates based upon sexual orientation. If there is no legitimate state interest then the 14th amendment indicates that the people of California are NOT entitled to make that judgment, that power has been specifically stripped from them via the equal protection clause.

The judge considered six possible rationales for the state having an 'interest' and rejected all of them: (" (1) reserving marriage as a union between a man and a woman and excluding any other relationship from marriage; (2) proceeding with caution when implementing social changes; (3) promoting opposite-sex parenting over same-sex parenting; (4) protecting the freedom of those who oppose marriage for same-sex couples; (5) treating same-sex couples differently from opposite-sex couples; and (6) any other conceivable interest.")

For those who have an interest in why the court found no legitimate state interest on these issues the discussion is located on pages 123-132.
 
Sirkickyass said:
.The judge considered six possible rationales for the state having an 'interest' and rejected all of them:
Click to expand...

Yeah, Kicky, the guy wrote 136 pages, so ya know he was, uhhh, shall we say "dedicated," eh? Big whoop. Like I done said:

Unconstitutional according to? One homosexual judge in San Francisco, eh? Like, whooda thunk, I ax ya? "It was likely that a homosexual judge would rule in his own interest so this was no big surprise to me," Nelson said minutes after Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker, who is gay, made his verdict public."
 
Hopper said:
Yeah, Kicky, the guy wrote 136 pages, so ya know he was, uhhh, shall we say "dedicated," eh? Big whoop. Like I done said:

Unconstitutional according to? One homosexual judge in San Francisco, eh? Like, whooda thunk, I ax ya? "It was likely that a homosexual judge would rule in his own interest so this was no big surprise to me," Nelson said minutes after Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker, who is gay, made his verdict public."
Click to expand...

Unconstitutional to *all* those who wish to pursue gay marriage, methinks.
 
chemdude1232 said:
Hence the phrase "pursue gay marriage." Those who want to actively pursue gay marriage will be for it.
Click to expand...

Well, not sure we're on the same page, here, eh, Chem? The guy I quoted is supposed to be strongly in favor of gay marriage and active in seeking to have it legitimatized nationwide. He thinks all prohibitions against it are unfair and unjust. He just doesn't think its prohibition is "unconstitutional," that's all.
 
Let me include this quickly, Hoppy:

The Williams Institute at the UCLA School of Law estimates, based on the 2005/06 American Community Survey, that ~8.8M people in the US are gay. Of those 8.8 million, I would be inclined to think the far and vast majority of them are for gay marriage.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top