How to Explain Gay Rights to Dummies

[DBCooper]

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

Your argument holds no merit. If gays are a suspect class, they can get married to one another.

[/quote]

No. How can a man marry a man? That is not what marriage is.

To say that they can have all the same rights as straights except for marriage is akin to saying that blacks can have all the same rights as whites except for access to all-white public schools.

But they DO have the same rights in relation to marriage as straight people. They can marry ANY woman of age that consents. So your argument doesn’t hold any water. Both straight men and gay men are being treated EXACTLY the same and have all the same rights…actually, gays have considerably more rights with all the anti-discrimination legislation; appropriately Orwellian name.

Your analogy is flawed too. A better analogy would be someone who demands to have their child David recognised as their daughter. After all what is gender? And what is a ‘mother?’ I demand maternity leave to look after my daughter David. After all, I’m the MOTHER you see.[/quote]

Look, if marriage is a fundamental right, then the definition of it as far as the govt goes has to be changed to being between two consenting adults. I don’t know how much clearer I can make this. To say, well, you can marry anyone you want except for the person you love is ridiculous and entirely discriminatory if other people CAN turn around and marry the one they love.

After all, what is marriage? It’s a union between two consenting adults who love each other. If it is also a fundamental right yet can only be between a man and a woman, gays are effectively banned from enjoying the same right that you or I can enjoy. If it isn’t a fundamental right then this whole argument is moot.

The Court, when deciding whether marriage is a fundamental right or not, will look at traditions and history to determine whether marriage is an integral part of western society. They’ll use English common law, previous case precedent in this country and so forth. I think that they will find that marriage is an integral part of society and has been for a long time. But they aren’t going to sit there and say, gee, nowhere have gays been allowed to marry before so it goes against tradition. Their job in this respect isn’t to determine whether discrimination has longstanding roots in this country and so forth. If the Court did look at things this way then blacks would still be segregated. Their aim will simply be to decide whether the ability to marry the person one loves is so deeply rooted in society that it must be a fundamental right. They aren’t looking to determine whether discrimination is the longstanding tradition but rather if the “right” being denied is a fundamental one.[/quote]

“Model 2” in full bloom.[/quote]

There’s nothing inherently wrong with the Model 2 approach. It’s that approach that led to Brown v. Board of Education and it’s also that approach that protects gun rights. After all, a purely Model One approach would say that while we have the right to bear arms, we don’t specifically have the right enumerated to us to bear ANY arms. The Model Two approach was employed in Bush v. Gore, and they got it right.

The funny thing about that ruling was that the Model One Justices (Scalia, Rehnquist, Thomas, Kennedy and to a lesser extent O’Connor) invoked the Equal Protection Clause and the case precedent that expanded it in the biggest Model Two Court ever (the Warren Court) in coming to their conclusion. The Model Two Justices (Souter, Breyer partially dissented, Ginsburg and Stevens fully dissented) went against the application of the EPC in this instance. So both sides went against literally all of their previous opinions in EPC cases to arrive at their conclusions.[/quote]

I think I understand what you mean here but Model Two is flippin’ disaster. At its core it’s nothing more than an end run around the amendment process.[/quote]

I fully agree that the Model Two approach hasn’t always led to the best decisions, Roe v. Wade being the most egregious. But of course, the big knock on the Model One approach is that it is an end run around the Equal Protection Clause and the Due Process Clause.

I think most Justices understand that neither approach is inherently right all the time. I think that’s part of the reason there are these tests that the Court uses with the Model Two approach, in order to avoid legislating from the bench (strict scrutiny, rational basis test and heightened/intermediate scrutiny to name the major ones).

[Oleena]

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Oleena wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]Oleena wrote:
From a purely legal standpoint, what is the purpose of marriage?

I don’t want an opinion or an interpretation. What does the law actually say its purpose is?

Edit: Srsly I’m having trouble just finding the simple definition as written in the law using google. I’m finding a lot about gay marriage and how religion has influenced the definition and purpose of laws about marriage, but there is nothing with the exact, written wording in the law as to what the definition of the purpose of marriage is. Hopefully some will find it?[/quote]

There is no Constitutionally-defined purpose to marriage aside from purely contractual purposes. In other words, it doesn’t say anywhere in the Constitution WHY people should get married or why the institution exists.[/quote]

Huh. Does it say anything about that anywhere else in the law?

Because this entire thread is completely useless, from both sides of the argument, if there is no actual definition of what the purpose of marriage is. Also, I don’t understand how there can be a contract without a purpose to the contract. Is there any other situations where a contract exists without a purpose?[/quote]

The 9th and 10th Amendments handle this. Nowhere else in the Constitution is it covered.[/quote]

I looked those up and did not get a definition of the purpose of marriage at all. If you can find it, please copy and paste the definition of the purpose of marriage according to US law into this thread.

That goes for anyone who can find it.

[SexMachine]

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

Look, if marriage is a fundamental right, then the definition of it as far as the govt goes has to be changed to being between two consenting adults.

[/quote]

Or three? Let’s make it four and we’ll leave it at that. Come on! Marriage = husband + wife - that’s what marriage is.

I don’t know how much clearer I can make this. To say, well, you can marry anyone you want except for the person you love is ridiculous and entirely discriminatory if other people CAN turn around and marry the one they love.

It’s really not a matter of saying who can marry who. Like I said, ANY man can get married to whomever he wants. However he cannot marry another man because that’s not what marriage is.

After all, what is marriage? It’s a union between two consenting adults who love each other.

Of the opposite sex. That’s the part you left out.

If it is also a fundamental right yet can only be between a man and a woman, gays are effectively banned from enjoying the same right that you or I can enjoy.

How so? Who is preventing gays from getting married? As I keep telling you, they are free to take any wife they choose. This argument is circular. You are playing semantic games about what marriage is. What you are really doing is attempting to redefine marriage which will undermine marriage, the family unit and society.

If it isn’t a fundamental right then this whole argument is moot.

Circular. It IS a fundamental right as I keep saying. And it’s important to protect that right when it comes under attack.

[quote]
The Court, when deciding whether marriage is a fundamental right or not, will look at traditions and history to determine whether marriage is an integral part of western society. They’ll use English common law, previous case precedent in this country and so forth. I think that they will find that marriage is an integral part of society and has been for a long time. But they aren’t going to sit there and say, gee, nowhere have gays been allowed to marry before so it goes against tradition. Their job in this respect isn’t to determine whether discrimination has longstanding roots in this country and so forth. If the Court did look at things this way then blacks would still be segregated. Their aim will simply be to decide whether the ability to marry the person one loves is so deeply rooted in society that it must be a fundamental right. They aren’t looking to determine whether discrimination is the longstanding tradition but rather if the “right” being denied is a fundamental one.[/quote]

No right is being denied. Everyone is free to marry whomever they choose.

[DBCooper]

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

What sort of discrimination against other forms of human relationships are you talking about?[/quote]

Are you serious? Polyamorous? Even non-intimate forms of arrangements. Any all possible forms of human relationships, regardless of gender, number of involved, or nature of relationship…Any form of state recognized marriage necessarily highlights/holds apart that relationship against all others. The only form of non-discriminatory marriage is the anarchist form…no state recognized marriages.[/quote]

This is kinda my question, if gays are given marital rights…would that precedent give polygamists every right to do what they want?

/curious
[/quote]

I don’t think so. No one has the right to marry multiple people at once. I think my response to Pushharder in this respect may have been a little off-base, although his scenario wasn’t really polygamy. More like communal marriage.

If some people could legally enter into a polygamous marriage and others couldn’t, extending the privilege/right of marriage to gays could set a precedent that would allow EVERYONE to marry polygamously. But since it isn’t a right afforded to ANYONE, it’s a moot point as far as this discussion goes.[/quote]

If you put it that way…I don’t see how it would be moot.

But carry on…[/quote]

The reason it’s moot is because the issue is only about two consenting adults. Polygamy is entirely different. The precedent set regarding two consenting adults will not apply to three or four or eight consenting adults. I would assume that if the Supreme Court ever delivered a majority opinion guaranteeing the rights of gays to marry one another, it will contain the caveat that the ruling does not apply to polygamy.

For instance, take a look at Cruzan v. Missouri Dept of Health and Washington v. Glucksberg. The issue in Cruzan was whether or not Cruzan had the right to refuse treatment when she was in a coma. Did she have the right to have the plug pulled on her? Rehnquist, who wrote the majority opinion, ruled that she DID have that right since unwanted medical treatment constituted battery against her. The fact that refusal of treatment effectively became suicide was immaterial and he clearly addressed this distinction in his opinion in Washington v. Glucksberg. This case dealt with the “right to die” from a state-assisted suicide standpoint.

After Rehnquist’s ruling in Cruzan it was assumed that this would lead to a legalization of suicide. But Rehnquist pointed out in his Washington opinion that “the two acts are widely and reasonably regarded as quite distinct.” He ruled against assisted suicide but for refusal of treatment which, like he pointed out, are two entirely different things. The distinction between refusal of treatment and suicide was made clear in Cruzan and reaffirmed in Washington.

In other words, the Supreme Court isn’t so stupid as to be unaware of the slippery slope nature of certain rulings, and they delineate between issues that may seem similar but are actually “quite distinct” specifically to avoid these slippery slopes.[/quote]

Then I beseech you right now to argue against the case of Steve, Adam and Evelyn vs. California. Have at it. Let me hear your case. Then SAE will argue theirs. And SAE will use YOUR own words when presenting it.[/quote]

Okay, let’s assume a couple things for this hypothetical case. First, let’s assume that homos are now a “suspect class”. Let’s assume that a member of this suspect class has brought suit in order to argue that disallowing two members of this class from marrying is a violation of their 1st Amendment rights and 14th Amendment rights under the Equal Protection Clause. Let’s also assume that the Court has decided, either somewhere in the opinion published concurrent to this case or in a previous case, that marriage IS a fundamental right. If it isn’t, then the whole thread is meaningless.

So, Sloth and Tiribulus bring suit asserting that their 1st and 14th Amendment rights are violated. The ruling would be simple, given the above assumptions. The Court would rule that there is a violation and that two men can marry one another, for all of these reasons I have laid out over the last 24 hours. What would happen is that Steve, Adam and Evelyn would then cite this case (we’ll call it Sloth/Tiribulus v. California) when bringing suit claiming that their 1st and 14th Amendment rights were being violated by disallowing the three of them to marry.

The Court would simply state in their opinion regarding SAE v. U.S. that there is a clear distinction between two consenting adults and three or more consenting adults, or a consenting father and daughter (assuming the daughter was of legal age) or a man and his dog or a woman and her vibrator…and that the ruling regarding two consenting adults in no way applies to any of the other aforementioned parties. That’s all they have to do. Rehnquist did exactly that in Washington v. Glucksberg and subsequent “right to die” cases.

I don’t doubt that if gay marriage was legalized there would be a flurry of other cases finding their way to the Court. Actually, they might not find their way to the Court because I would suspect that the Court would decide to hear maybe one or two cases that are pretty much all-encompassing in terms of the issues at hand so that they wouldn’t have to repeatedly deny hearing similar cases.

The Supreme Court would realize the bucket of worms they’d be opening up by hearing this case and it’s entirely within their discretion to put the lid on it with a ruling that clearly delineates between gay marriage and polygamous marriage. That would end the slipper slope right there and then. Like I said, it’s been done before and that’s partially where tests like rational basis or strict scrutiny come from. In this case, the Court could find that there is a rational basis for barring polygamy or incestuous marriages but not gay marriage. The language they would use is something along the lines of “polygamy is inimical to the public welfare”. Honestly, I don’t really know the rationale they would use because some of these Justices can get pretty creative in how they rationalize a decision, which is common to both models, but I believe this would be the basic gist of it.

[apbt55]

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]JEATON wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

“but it’s not NATURAL”. Actually, it is. Take a look at MANY other species in the animal kingdom and you will see plenty of examples of homosexuality/bisexuality/etc…

[/quote]

Your other points aside, this particular claim always annoys the shit out of me. It is total and complete bullshit.

Yes, you can find examples of animals who mimic sexual acts or even attempt sexual acts with same sex members of their own specials or even other species. Pheromones, etc. trigger short term momentary impulses that lead to the acting out of sexual behavior. For a moment! The animals do not them go out and pick out a fucking China pattern together. They do not cohabit a nest, cave or din and decide to live out their lives together.

The whole difference between humans and animals is the ability to override impulse. Gay/homosexual marriage and long term cohabitation is not natural in the animal kingdom, much less in the human kingdom. [/quote]

Of course it’s natural. It’s been going on amongst humans since the beginning of recorded history. Just because it isn’t the norm doesn’t make it unnatural. There are all sorts of things that people do and have been doing for centuries that isn’t common but that is natural. I suppose it really just comes down to what one’s definition of natural is. Birth defects are natural, psychological disorders are natural. In no way am I equating these two examples with homosexuality, by the way. I don’t think it’s a disorder or a birth defect.

The idea that it needs to be natural to be okay smacks of Jim Crow-era ignorance. It’s the exact same argument used to justify banning interracial marriage and the separation of races in general. It’s simply a convenient escape hatch for those who don’t know where else to go.[/quote]

it may be natural, but it is not normal. It is psychosexual disorder, which was only redefined through the APA in the DSM by political manipulation and corruption of the committee with non accredited members.

And if you want to speak technically, case precedent is judicial activism, legislation from the beanch and grounds from removal from the bench according to our constitution, but no one cares about the law anymore. The government walks all over our rights every day.

That being said, the government should have no business in marraige. It is covenant between a man and a woman before God. But the government should also not tell the owner of a business they cannot discriminate against their employees. If they don’t want a trait, they own their busniess and their rights should not be violated to give special priviliges to a group.

[Gambit_Lost]

[quote]JEATON wrote:

Yes, you can find examples of animals who mimic sexual acts or even attempt sexual acts with same sex members of their own specials or even other species. Pheromones, etc. trigger short term momentary impulses that lead to the acting out of sexual behavior. For a moment! The animals do not them go out and pick out a fucking China pattern together. They do not cohabit a nest, cave or din and decide to live out their lives together. [/quote]

Didn’t bother to read after the first page (and I figure this will just get lost anyway), but…

Jeaton, sir, you may wish to look up this “fact” that you have. You, apparently, will be surprised by the answer. Here is a fun wiki link. I apologize, but I won’t be checking back on this thread.

Homosexual behavior in animals | Penguins

[DBCooper]

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

Look, if marriage is a fundamental right, then the definition of it as far as the govt goes has to be changed to being between two consenting adults.

[/quote]

Or three? Let’s make it four and we’ll leave it at that. Come on! Marriage = husband + wife - that’s what marriage is.

I don’t know how much clearer I can make this. To say, well, you can marry anyone you want except for the person you love is ridiculous and entirely discriminatory if other people CAN turn around and marry the one they love.

It’s really not a matter of saying who can marry who. Like I said, ANY man can get married to whomever he wants. However he cannot marry another man because that’s not what marriage is.

After all, what is marriage? It’s a union between two consenting adults who love each other.

Of the opposite sex. That’s the part you left out.

If it is also a fundamental right yet can only be between a man and a woman, gays are effectively banned from enjoying the same right that you or I can enjoy.

How so? Who is preventing gays from getting married? As I keep telling you, they are free to take any wife they choose. This argument is circular. You are playing semantic games about what marriage is. What you are really doing is attempting to redefine marriage which will undermine marriage, the family unit and society.

If it isn’t a fundamental right then this whole argument is moot.

Circular. It IS a fundamental right as I keep saying. And it’s important to protect that right when it comes under attack.

[quote]
The Court, when deciding whether marriage is a fundamental right or not, will look at traditions and history to determine whether marriage is an integral part of western society. They’ll use English common law, previous case precedent in this country and so forth. I think that they will find that marriage is an integral part of society and has been for a long time. But they aren’t going to sit there and say, gee, nowhere have gays been allowed to marry before so it goes against tradition. Their job in this respect isn’t to determine whether discrimination has longstanding roots in this country and so forth. If the Court did look at things this way then blacks would still be segregated. Their aim will simply be to decide whether the ability to marry the person one loves is so deeply rooted in society that it must be a fundamental right. They aren’t looking to determine whether discrimination is the longstanding tradition but rather if the “right” being denied is a fundamental one.[/quote]

No right is being denied. Everyone is free to marry whomever they choose.[/quote]

Look, everything you’ve said is based on the assumption that marriage is not a fundamental right. If it isn’t, then you’re mostly right here. But if it IS a fundamental right and IF gays are a suspect class (which I think they may already be according to Lawrence v. Texas, and if not they most likely will be found to belong to the suspect class if any sort of discrimination case based on homosexuality finds its way to the Supreme Court that deals with any other fundamental right being abridged on the basis of sexuality), then marriage must be reworded so that it is between two consenting adults.

No suspect class can have a fundamental right denied them on the basis of what makes them part of that suspect class. This has been demonstrated in the 19th Amendment, the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendment, Brown v. Board of Education and the repeal of the “separate but equal” doctrine and many other cases.

[DBCooper]

[quote]apbt55 wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]JEATON wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

“but it’s not NATURAL”. Actually, it is. Take a look at MANY other species in the animal kingdom and you will see plenty of examples of homosexuality/bisexuality/etc…

[/quote]

Your other points aside, this particular claim always annoys the shit out of me. It is total and complete bullshit.

Yes, you can find examples of animals who mimic sexual acts or even attempt sexual acts with same sex members of their own specials or even other species. Pheromones, etc. trigger short term momentary impulses that lead to the acting out of sexual behavior. For a moment! The animals do not them go out and pick out a fucking China pattern together. They do not cohabit a nest, cave or din and decide to live out their lives together.

The whole difference between humans and animals is the ability to override impulse. Gay/homosexual marriage and long term cohabitation is not natural in the animal kingdom, much less in the human kingdom. [/quote]

Of course it’s natural. It’s been going on amongst humans since the beginning of recorded history. Just because it isn’t the norm doesn’t make it unnatural. There are all sorts of things that people do and have been doing for centuries that isn’t common but that is natural. I suppose it really just comes down to what one’s definition of natural is. Birth defects are natural, psychological disorders are natural. In no way am I equating these two examples with homosexuality, by the way. I don’t think it’s a disorder or a birth defect.

The idea that it needs to be natural to be okay smacks of Jim Crow-era ignorance. It’s the exact same argument used to justify banning interracial marriage and the separation of races in general. It’s simply a convenient escape hatch for those who don’t know where else to go.[/quote]

it may be natural, but it is not normal. It is psychosexual disorder, which was only redefined through the APA in the DSM by political manipulation and corruption of the committee with non accredited members.

And if you want to speak technically, case precedent is judicial activism, legislation from the beanch and grounds from removal from the bench according to our constitution, but no one cares about the law anymore. The government walks all over our rights every day.

That being said, the government should have no business in marraige. It is covenant between a man and a woman before God. But the government should also not tell the owner of a business they cannot discriminate against their employees. If they don’t want a trait, they own their busniess and their rights should not be violated to give special priviliges to a group. [/quote]

You have no clue what you’re talking about regarding legislating from the bench and case precedent. Chief Justice Rehnquist was probably the biggest epitome of the Model One approach that the Court has seen in the last 100 years. He was perhaps the most vocal opponent of what he perceived to be Justices legislating from the bench. And perhaps no Justice in the last 100 years relied more heavily on previous case precedent than Rehnquist had. He respected case precedent and even noted in his concurring opinion in Casey v. Planned Parenthood that, while he disagreed with the result of Roe v. Wade he respected the precedent the case established and would apply that precedent in subsequent cases, Casey being the first of them.

[Broncoandy]

I’m confused. What exactly is the problem with gays and lesbians being joined till death do them part, and in what way does it effect anyone who isn’t a homosexual negatively? There are benefits to the individuals, the state, and society to allow it, but I fail to see how it is in any way shape or form detrimental to anyone compared to hetero unions. Let them be as miserable as everyone else. If “god” doesn’t like it, he can straighten them out later. I’m sure he can handle it without your help, what with his being almighty and all.

Now I’m not all that familiar with the U.S. constitution, but I’m fairly sure it doesn’t end with a “no homo”. Life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness? If marrying each other is what makes them happy, than they have a right to persue it do they not? And if there’s no detriment to anyone else, there’s no reason to deny them that.

They can’t have children. GREAT! Overpopulation, and unwanted children are a problem. This is a solution. Adopted kids aren’t going to catch teh ghey. How many of you have sex with women because that’s what your dad did? Do you even think about your parents sexuality? I sure as fuck hope not.

[SexMachine]

[quote]Broncoandy wrote:
I’m confused. What exactly is the problem with gays and lesbians being joined till death do them part, and in what way does it effect anyone who isn’t a homosexual negatively?

[/quote]

No problem with me. Doesn’t affect me.

There are benefits to the individuals, the state, and society to allow it,

Allow what? Two people of the same sex to be ‘joined till death do them part?’ Who is advocating that we forcibly separate gay people who wish to be ‘joined till death?’

but I fail to see how it is in any way shape or form detrimental to anyone compared to hetero unions.

Me neither. But it’s not a ‘hetero union’ BTW it’s ‘marriage.’

Let them be as miserable as everyone else. If “god” doesn’t like it, he can straighten them out later. I’m sure he can handle it without your help, what with his being almighty and all.

No comment.

Now I’m not all that familiar with the U.S. constitution, but I’m fairly sure it doesn’t end with a “no homo”. Life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness? If marrying each other is what makes them happy, than they have a right to persue it do they not? And if there’s no detriment to anyone else, there’s no reason to deny them that.

Exactly. I see no reason why gays shouldn’t marry. In fact, I think society should ENCOURAGE them to marry what with the declining birthrate and all. Who is advocating that gays can’t marry? I would say, that if a gay man decides he wishes to take a wife - good luck to him.
Same with a lesbian woman who wishes to take a husband.

They can’t have children.

I think they should be allowed to have children. Having had relations with someone of the same sex in the past should not necessarily preclude one from going on to have a normal relationship, marriage and children one day.

GREAT! Overpopulation, and unwanted children are a problem.

No…they’re not. In fact the declining birthrate in the Western world in particular is a massive problem.

[Broncoandy]

So you’re argument is one of semantics? If we called it “marriaje” (with a J!) and it gave them all of the rights and responsabilities that you and I get with marriage you’d be fine with that?

[Sloth]

I notice my pointing out your own’ bigotry’ has been ignored. You’re either an anarchist in regards to the state recognizing marriage (no recognition at all), or a faddish, emotional, pet-project adopting, hypocrite. Which position is yours?

[SexMachine]

[quote]Broncoandy wrote:
So you’re argument is one of semantics?
[/quote]

No yours is. Who is trying to redefine marriage? What is marriage and what has marriage always been? Husband + wife. It is YOU who is playing semantic games my friend.

If we called it “marriaje” (with a J!)

Call what? “It?” Two men who live together? Two women who live together? Call it what you like. It’s NOT marriage. Now you are just being silly.

[quote]
…and it gave them all of the rights and responsabilities that you and I get with marriage you’d be fine with that?[/quote]

Sure no problem. Spend a whole lot of tax-payers’ money with the nonsense and gay people can be recognised as ‘marriajed’ - which means two men/women who live together. Fine.

[Sloth]

[quote]Broncoandy wrote:
I’m confused. What exactly is the problem with gays and lesbians being joined till death do them part.[/quote]

If they want to exchange rings and work out arrangements. with no more privilege or recognition than Joe Bob and his buddy, fine. The government treating their relationship as something so absolutely special and critical, recognizing it and privileging it, above Joe Bob and his pal, is uncalled for discrimination.

[CappedAndPlanIt]

[quote]JEATON wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

“but it’s not NATURAL”. Actually, it is. Take a look at MANY other species in the animal kingdom and you will see plenty of examples of homosexuality/bisexuality/etc…

[/quote]

Your other points aside, this particular claim always annoys the shit out of me. It is total and complete bullshit.

Yes, you can find examples of animals who mimic sexual acts or even attempt sexual acts with same sex members of their own specials or even other species. Pheromones, etc. trigger short term momentary impulses that lead to the acting out of sexual behavior. For a moment! The animals do not them go out and pick out a fucking China pattern together. They do not cohabit a nest, cave or din and decide to live out their lives together.

The whole difference between humans and animals is the ability to override impulse. Gay/homosexual marriage and long term cohabitation is not natural in the animal kingdom, much less in the human kingdom. [/quote]

“An estimated one-quarter of all black swans pairings are homosexual and they steal nests, or form temporary threesomes with females to obtain eggs, driving away the female after she lays the eggs.[34][35] More of their cygnets survive to adulthood than those of different-sex pairs, possibly due to their superior ability to defend large portions of land. The same reasoning has been applied to male flamingo pairs raising chicks.[36][37]”

Homosexual behavior in animals

Owned.

[SexMachine]

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

“An estimated one-quarter of all black swans pairings are homosexual and they steal nests, or form temporary threesomes with females to obtain eggs, driving away the female after she lays the eggs.[34][35] More of their cygnets survive to adulthood than those of different-sex pairs, possibly due to their superior ability to defend large portions of land. The same reasoning has been applied to male flamingo pairs raising chicks.[36][37]”

Homosexual behavior in animals

Owned.
[/quote]

Wow! Another victory for logic. Now, as I remember Magpies eat their siblings in the nest so maybe we should encourage our eldest children to murder and eat their siblings right?

[Broncoandy]

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Broncoandy wrote:
I’m confused. What exactly is the problem with gays and lesbians being joined till death do them part.[/quote]

If they want to exchange rings and work out arrangements. with no more privilege or recognition than Joe Bob and his buddy, fine. The government treating their relationship as something so absolutely special and critical, recognizing it and privileging it, above Joe Bob and his pal, is uncalled for discrimination. [/quote]

It’s no more discrimination against Joe Bob and his pal than is a legally recognized heterosexual marriage.

[CappedAndPlanIt]

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

“An estimated one-quarter of all black swans pairings are homosexual and they steal nests, or form temporary threesomes with females to obtain eggs, driving away the female after she lays the eggs.[34][35] More of their cygnets survive to adulthood than those of different-sex pairs, possibly due to their superior ability to defend large portions of land. The same reasoning has been applied to male flamingo pairs raising chicks.[36][37]”

Homosexual behavior in animals

Owned.
[/quote]

Wow! Another victory for logic. Now, as I remember Magpies eat their siblings in the nest so maybe we should encourage our eldest children to murder and eat their siblings right?[/quote]

Sigh. Sometimes I wonder why I deal with these dipshits.

Listen, moron -read this carefully, kay sweetheart? Here, I’ll make it nice and big for ya:

MY POINT WAS NOT THAT HOMOSEXUALITY IS MORALLY ACCEPTABLE BECAUSE ITS NATURAL.

Yes, (a) homosexuality is morally acceptable. And, yes, (b) homosexuality is natural. Now, read the sentence above again – just because I say that (a) and (b) are both true, does not mean that I am saying (a) is true because of (b) or that (b) is true because of (a). I’m simply saying that both are true.

So, pointing out something else that is natural, but morally unacceptable, does not address any point I made, at all.

Nice try, play again.

[CappedAndPlanIt]

Yes, sex machine, some things that are natural (rape) are morally unacceptable. And some things that are natural (sex) are morally acceptable. And some things that are unnatural (biological warfare) are morally unacceptable. And some things that are unnatural(cell phones) are morally acceptable.

Its almost like… wait, for it…wait for it…

Something being “natural” or “unnatural” does not necessarily mean it is morally acceptable or unacceptable!

So when fools like you say “Homosexuality is wrong because its unnatural!” you get to be wrong three times! First in the claim that homosexuality is wrong, secondly in the claim that homosexuality is unnatural, and THEN you get to be wrong again because the statement implies that being unnatural makes something wrong!

[Broncoandy]

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Sure no problem. Spend a whole lot of tax-payers’ money with the nonsense and gay people can be recognised as ‘marriajed’ - which means two men/women who live together. Fine.[/quote]

Marriaje deserves all the rights and responsabilities of marriage. That’s more than just cohabitation. It does seem a little silly though to spend a whole lot of tax-payer money on a new word when we’ve got one that works just fine already though. But I guess we wouldn’t want the government to wonder wether we were married, or marriaged. They wouldn’t be able to keep track of wether or not we were gay if they did that !