Scientists: Same sex couples found in nature.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

I never understood the ".....founded on Christian Values...." argument, because that would imply that the "values" from that time period, which include a lot of ugly things used in the name of "Christianity", should still be in place.

 

I always viewed our society as an ever evolving culture, that strives to keep the good things going and over time discover what should be changed, and well, change it.

 

Maybe so, and you are correct that culture evolves, but it's not like there is some huge "gays should get married" movement in this country that a lot of straight people are behind. It's a very vocal minority advocating this. This isn't like the abolitionist movement of the 1800s.

[Ripper 0]

I never understood the ".....founded on Christian Values...." argument, because that would imply that the "values" from that time period, which include a lot of ugly things used in the name of "Christianity", should still be in place.

 

I always viewed our society as an ever evolving culture, that strives to keep the good things going and over time discover what should be changed, and well, change it.

 

Maybe so, and you are correct that culture evolves, but it's not like there is some huge "gays should get married" movement in this country that a lot of straight people are behind. It's a very vocal minority advocating this. This isn't like the abolitionist movement of the 1800s.

 

 

That logic is retardly flawed. There will never be some huge movement and it will always be a vocal minority because gays are the minority.

 

There was a small, vocal minority that felt that interracial marriage should be legal. You have numerous cases before Loving v. Virgina where people were still charged with felonies for engaging in any interracial dating, sex or marriage.

 

Being the majority doesn't make something right.

 

Your entire argument is completely based on you saying your thoughts and beliefs should be forced on everyone. As I said before, its not like they are getting married under YOUR religion. If they are a member of a certain religion that allows for them to get married, you are basically telling everyone that their religion doesn't count because its not yours.

[The Niggardly King 0]

Only two people have ever had true power in this country. White Men and Black Women. Back during those interracial marriage laws, the first breakthrough was allowing a WHITE MAN MARRY A BLACK WOMAN. Shit, who wast the first WOMAN they actually allowed to earn her Million $? Oprah, face it White Men and Black Women hold the power in the majority.

 

 

What this has to do with fags getting married? Don't know, Ripper's post made me wanna rant about this. I'd say let 'em get married if they want too, I don't care as I don't believe in marriage.

[Jorge Gorgeous 0]

Hwhat?

[Ripper 0]

Only two people have ever had true power in this country. White Men and Black Women. Back during those interracial marriage laws, the first breakthrough was allowing a WHITE MAN MARRY A BLACK WOMAN. Shit, who wast the first WOMAN they actually allowed to earn her Million $? Oprah, face it White Men and Black Women hold the power in the majority.

 

 

What this has to do with fags getting married? Don't know, Ripper's post made me wanna rant about this. I'd say let 'em get married if they want too, I don't care as I don't believe in marriage.

 

 

What the hell did my post have to do with that?

[SuperJerk 0]

Only two people have ever had true power in this country. White Men and Black Women. Back during those interracial marriage laws, the first breakthrough was allowing a WHITE MAN MARRY A BLACK WOMAN. Shit, who wast the first WOMAN they actually allowed to earn her Million $? Oprah, face it White Men and Black Women hold the power in the majority.

[Jingus 0]

It's a very vocal minority advocating this. This isn't like the abolitionist movement of the 1800s.

No, that's a horrible example. Because the abolitionist movement of the 1800s was, indeed, for the most part a very vocal minority. Most people then didn't want to free the slaves. There was a whole lot of gray area with the corresponding "anti-slavery" or "free soil" movements, which basically said that as long as slavery didn't spread to new states and territories then it could stay put where it was. And clearly the Southern states felt pretty opposed to the idea, considering the whole war and all. And it took another hundred years after emancipation for black people to be considered full equals under the law. Considering that the first abolitionist and pro-equality movements were started all the way back in the 1600s, it took a hell of a long time for the majority to catch up.

[PLAGIARISM! 0]

Fuck tha haters, George!

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7410431.stm

[NoCalMike 0]

I also have trouble understanding the viewpoint of such "culture warriors" like Michael Savage and O'Reily, who are just up in arms about this. On one hand they rant and rave about the "homosexual promiscuous lifestyle"(whatever the fuck that means) then when these people show that they actually want to settle down and get married like everyone else, these two are even more outraged about "homosexuality becoming the norm, and next you can marry your dog"

[At Home 0]

Play a character, cash your check...

[The Man in Blak 0]

I don't buy into any pro-gay agenda behind this study, but I would think that any such conclusions based upon this single study are a bit premature. The fact that we're observing homosexual behavior in animals closes one door (homosexuality only as choice), but opens many others; is this behavior an adaptive mechanism (i.e. is it learned over time through evolution)? Are there any environmental causalities? Does the occurrence of this behavior increase in a given population over time (i.e. is it learned through observation)? Are there any biological similarities between animals that exhibit homosexual behavior in a given population or across populations?

 

I also have trouble understanding the viewpoint of such "culture warriors" like Michael Savage and O'Reily, who are just up in arms about this. On one hand they rant and rave about the "homosexual promiscuous lifestyle"(whatever the fuck that means) then when these people show that they actually want to settle down and get married like everyone else, these two are even more outraged about "homosexuality becoming the norm, and next you can marry your dog"

 

You're missing the point entirely - it's not that they are at odds with the homosexual lifestyle but, rather, homosexuality itself. They feel that homosexuality is bad and, thus, they probably feel that legalization of gay marriage only encourages that behavior, that lifestyle, and the cultural acceptance of both.

 

Personally, I'm loathe to really make any kind of sociological judgment towards homosexuality because there's still far too much unknown about it, other than the fact that it happens. I don't really agree with rampant persecution, nor do I celebrate it through gay pride and all that, though I would imagine that the latter is a direct result of the former.

 

Maybe I'm off in left field, but I'm more intrigued with why it happens...and, from that standpoint, the study only answers that question with more questions.

[Ripper 0]

You have enough information. A adult person who has no connection to you happens to be sexually and emotionally attracted to a person of the same sex, who also has no connection to you.

 

Thus, its no one's fucking business but theirs. There is no point on building a opinion because it isn't yours.

 

As to why it happens, there is no reason that it shouldn't happen. I personally don't understand why people think it needs to explained through biological, genetic or environmental study. Once you explain attraction and emotional attachement amoung humans, you have a reason why there is homosexuality.

 

[The Man in Blak 0]

You have enough information. A adult person who has no connection to you happens to be sexually and emotionally attracted to a person of the same sex, who also has no connection to you.

 

Thus, its no one's fucking business but theirs. There is no point on building a opinion because it isn't yours.

 

As to why it happens, there is no reason that it shouldn't happen. I personally don't understand why people think it needs to explained through biological, genetic or environmental study. Once you explain attraction and emotional attachement amoung humans, you have a reason why there is homosexuality.

 

For one, emotional attachment isn't necessarily a required component for any kind of sexual encounter, homosexual or otherwise. As welcome as an explanation for love and attachment would be, it's not entirely germane to the specific issue of homosexuality.

 

Secondly, the legislative implications that surround marriage, such as tax breaks/penalties, make it a public issue for the Bill O'Reillys and the message board pundits to discuss and debate at length. If you want to argue that those implications shouldn't be there, fire away, but the fact that they exist ensure that gay marriage isn't just happening in a vacuum, so to speak. There are consequences, precedents at stake that can affect everybody.

 

Finally, the explanation that you're requiring for sexual attraction in this case is the very explanation that would be provided by a biological/genetic/environmental study, so I'm a little puzzled as to how you wouldn't understand the need for it in one sentence, then call for it as a necessity in the next.

[Ripper 0]

You are seperating the study from homosexuality from "normal" heterosexuality. I personally see them as one in the same.

 

Human sexuality is human sexuality. It is simply humanities labeling of homosexuality as taboo that would make anyone have pause. So its not so much that you don't need to study human attraction, its that seperating the studies as to try and figure out homosexuality seems kinda dumb to me as it is just another case of human attraction. The same rules and notions clearly apply to those of homosexual nature.

 

And gay marriage still only affects those envolved in a gay marriage. Just as hetero marriage effects those that are married. What conseqences and precedents affect everyone?

[SamoaRowe 0]

Yeah, what are these consequences with tax breaks, etc, that would exist that don't exist already? And what precedent would it set? I know people love to try and argue that if we let gays get married, next thing you know people will want to marry animals. Yeah, that's a logical connection. We're talking about consentual adults getting married, they're not the same by any stretch of the imagination.

[The Man in Blak 0]

You are seperating the study from homosexuality from "normal" heterosexuality. I personally see them as one in the same.

 

Human sexuality is human sexuality. It is simply humanities labeling of homosexuality as taboo that would make anyone have pause. So its not so much that you don't need to study human attraction, its that seperating the studies as to try and figure out homosexuality seems kinda dumb to me as it is just another case of human attraction. The same rules and notions clearly apply to those of homosexual nature.

 

And gay marriage still only affects those envolved in a gay marriage. Just as hetero marriage effects those that are married. What conseqences and precedents affect everyone?

 

I make that separation because the two acts are completely different from an evolutionary standpoint. One act can lead to continued procreation of the race; the other one does not. And our understanding of sexual impulses, to this point, seems tied to that evolutionary fact...so why would any given species (animal, human, whatever) consider homosexuality? Is it general dysfunction or is it actually an evolutionary trait (i.e. natural)? If it is actually an evolutionary trait, why is it apparently constrained to such a small minority of the population? Answers to these questions may not change the minds of every single person that is considering this issue, but it will provide more information to the people who are undecided on the issue to really consider it.

 

The consideration of homosexuality as taboo is a sociological decision and that decision is founded on what perceived benefits it has to the culture at large, benefits that may be tied to some of the questions that I asked above. If you're content to say that homosexuality is acceptable or that it's a scourge, either way, you're entitled to your opinion...but I think that coming to that decision so quickly kind of cheats yourself out of a better understanding as to what really drives it.

 

And the legislative acceptance of gay marriage as a civil union implies, culturally, that we accept gay marriage as an equal commodity to "normal" marriage, a union which already has religious ties to begin with. People that don't agree with gay marriage in principle may not feel that gay couples should receive the same benefits as "normal" married couples, that such benefits are in play to encourage "normal" marriage. (Precedent was a poor word choice.)

 

Personally, I'm completely indifferent to gay marriage. The government already allows marriages to exist outside of the traditional religious boundaries (you can get married by a local justice of the peace, for example), so I'm not sure I understand all of the rancor directed towards keeping things "in line with the traditional Christian beliefs." Conversely, I don't think that homosexual couples are necessarily entitled to social benefits from a government standpoint either; any government is well within its rights to exempt them from such benefits if it feels that such relationships don't contribute positively to society.

 

Ultimately, I would prefer that the government (and anybody else, really) would make such a judgment based upon some kind of rational argument, knowledge, rather than the fact that one loud minority thinks that gays should burn in hell or another loud minority thinks that homosexuality is natural, beautiful, and should be embraced within society. And I personally feel that the knowledge surrounding homosexuality is lacking at this time...so if the government wants to wait and see more proof that gay couples can positively add to society, then so be it; the burden of proof lies with with the gay community to further build that case.

[Ripper 0]

I would argue that human sexuality, while it does have its evolutionary benefits of procreation, doesn't solely hinge on it. Human sexuality is also goes hand in had with emotion, and cognitive thought. Humans are probably the only species that would choose to couple with the less fertile male or female based on things such material possessions for example. The way our minds work seperates us from animals, whose primary goal is to procreate. Humans even chose to remove that function from the equation and engage in sex purely for the emotional and physical benifits. When you take that into account, it would be obvious that a minoirity of the species would share an attraction with those of the same sex for the same reasons that those of the opposite sex find each other attractive. While some men are attracted to large breast, some are not. Some men are attracted to hard pectorials. All of that is to be expected.

 

If you discover and unlock all the secrets of human attraction and sexuality you unlock the secrets to homosexuality.

 

And you are ignoring the rational thought that if Muslims, Hindu, Budist etc. couples are allowed to be married and recognized in the US, then it obviously is not up to the interpretation of Christian beliefs. As I have said before, if Gays are able to get married, then apparently they are members of a religion that says its okay. How exactly can the argument be made that a gay couple contributes more or less than any other couple? The burden of proof is on the goverment to provide a reason that their unjust and discriminatory actions are excusable. Gays can no more prove that they are valuable contributors to society any more than you and I. Requiring them to prove the unproveable is beyond silly.

 

You are pretending that the goverments stance has anything to do with contribution to society. It doesn't. It is solely based on some peoples religious beliefs, which is not what this nation was supposedly built upon.

 

 

[Jingus 0]

so why would any given species (animal, human, whatever) consider homosexuality? Is it general dysfunction or is it actually an evolutionary trait (i.e. natural)? If it is actually an evolutionary trait, why is it apparently constrained to such a small minority of the population?

This would seem fairly obvious. If homosexuality is actually a genetic predisposition and not a free-willed choice, then obviously it would be a recessive gene which can skip generations and doesn't get switched on very often. Some gays have had straight relationships (either through repression or hiding of their true nature) which produced offspring, but this phenomenon alone couldn't possibly account for the seemingly random distribution of homosexual tendencies throughout society.

 

Of course, the nature vs. nuture issue does kinda run into a wall when you consider people who are bi-/poly-/pan-/whatever the new trendy name for it is -sexual. They don't seem programmed to accept any one specific thing. Or all of the other weirder and less socially acceptable sexaul proclivities out there. (Like, would anyone chose to become, for example, a pedophile?) I think perhaps the biggest argument for it not being a choice; if you weren't gay, why would you want to be? Aside from the relatively minor recent trend of Brokeback Eye For The L Word Guy, homosexuality has traditionally been an act which has been considered one of the most shameful lifestyles. I mean, fifty years ago, people would've much rather lived next door to bank robbers than to faggots. Even today being outwardly gay can be a good way to catch a beating in certain places and times. There's still a very common social stigma which goes with it. So I just can't agree with the idiots who claim that people are deliberately turning gay just because it's trendy or whatever similar stupid fucking argument they're floating today.

[Corkscrew_Senton 0]

I also have trouble understanding the viewpoint of such "culture warriors" like Michael Savage and O'Reily, who are just up in arms about this. On one hand they rant and rave about the "homosexual promiscuous lifestyle"(whatever the fuck that means) then when these people show that they actually want to settle down and get married like everyone else, these two are even more outraged about "homosexuality becoming the norm, and next you can marry your dog"

 

Ironic that O'Reilly decries anyone's promiscuity when he's busy asking women if they want their boobs rubbed with loofahs and jerking off during phone conversations.

[Ripper 0]

so why would any given species (animal, human, whatever) consider homosexuality? Is it general dysfunction or is it actually an evolutionary trait (i.e. natural)? If it is actually an evolutionary trait, why is it apparently constrained to such a small minority of the population?

This would seem fairly obvious. If homosexuality is actually a genetic predisposition and not a free-willed choice, then obviously it would be a recessive gene which can skip generations and doesn't get switched on very often. Some gays have had straight relationships (either through repression or hiding of their true nature) which produced offspring, but this phenomenon alone couldn't possibly account for the seemingly random distribution of homosexual tendencies throughout society.

 

Of course, the nature vs. nuture issue does kinda run into a wall when you consider people who are bi-/poly-/pan-/whatever the new trendy name for it is -sexual. They don't seem programmed to accept any one specific thing. Or all of the other weirder and less socially acceptable sexaul proclivities out there. (Like, would anyone chose to become, for example, a pedophile?) I think perhaps the biggest argument for it not being a choice; if you weren't gay, why would you want to be? Aside from the relatively minor recent trend of Brokeback Eye For The L Word Guy, homosexuality has traditionally been an act which has been considered one of the most shameful lifestyles. I mean, fifty years ago, people would've much rather lived next door to bank robbers than to faggots. Even today being outwardly gay can be a good way to catch a beating in certain places and times. There's still a very common social stigma which goes with it. So I just can't agree with the idiots who claim that people are deliberately turning gay just because it's trendy or whatever similar stupid fucking argument they're floating today.

 

Well...okay. I admit I am wrong. Obviously some research into homosexuality needs to be done.

 

Because, I would say there are some wildly differing opinions to what Jingus here said.

 

I still stand by the silly nature of this whole "Should gays be allowed to get married" thing.

 

[At Home 0]

Obviously some research into homosexuality needs to be done.

 

Because there isn't data already out there?

[SamoaRowe 0]

Gay wedding for Star Trek's Takei

 

Takei appeared in the popular TV series Heroes last year

US actor George Takei is to wed his long-term partner after California lifted its ban on same-sex marriage.

 

Takei, 71, best known for playing Mr Sulu in Star Trek, said he and Brad Altman were going through the "delicious dilemma" of where to marry.

 

The actor and 54-year-old Mr Altman have been together for 21 years.

 

"We can have the dignity, as well as all the responsibilities, of marriage. We embrace it all heartily," Takei wrote on his website.

 

'Good times'

 

Takei, who recently appeared in the popular US TV series Heroes, added: "We've worked in partnership; he manages the business side of my career and I do the performing.

 

"We've travelled the world together from Europe to Asia to Australia. We've shared the good times as well as struggled through the bad.

 

"He helped me care for my ailing mother who lived with us for the last years of her life. He is my love and I can't imagine life without him."

 

On Thursday, California's Supreme Court said the "right to form a family relationship" applied to all Californians regardless of sexuality.

 

But opponents of the decision said they would seek an amendment to the state constitution, which would override the ruling.

 

Following the Supreme Court's decision to legalise same-sex marriage, comedian Ellen DeGeneres announced plans to marry her girlfriend, actress Portia de Rossi.

 

I find this to be really heartwarming. And there are lots of stories just like this one.

 

 

 

 

[RepoMan 0]

So apparantly there's a California county so homophobic they're stoping all weddings rather than to have to marry any gays. New law prompts Calif. county to halt all weddings

 

 

[SamoaRowe 0]

So apparantly there's a California county so homophobic they're stoping all weddings rather than to have to marry any gays. New law prompts Calif. county to halt all weddings

 

That's all kinds of fucked up.

[Jorge Gorgeous 0]

I knew a guy from Bakersfield. He drank himself out of college. I think I understand why, now.

[Dr. Zoidberg 0]

I know three people from Bakersfield. One is a dumb hippy and the other two are jock assholes.

 

I went there once. Never again...never, ever again.

[At Home 0]

Good thing that the Bakersfield meth production revenue will be able to cover all the taxes lost through the loss of the marriage industry.

[LJSexay 0]

We'd always laugh about people from Bakersfield and Kern county without going past the hick and conservative nature of it versus the rest of California, and now... it all makes perfect sense. Totally stupid.