Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Jack Bauer on January 8, 2013 at 11:27pm

Since I'm arguing across purposes here, I'm probably the wrong guy to ask for specifics.  I'm fairly well-practiced at making arguments I disagree with, but there are limits.

I think they would likely regard marriage as a civil right, and say that the right should apply equally to all couples.  Most would likely cite miscegenation cases and Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down anti-homosexuality laws as a violation of the right of privacy.  I actually agreed with that ruling, but think the application to gay marriage is too liberal a reading.

Personally, I don't think rights apply to couples.  They apply to individuals.  As such, the law applies equally -- everybody is equally permitted to marry someone of the opposite sex -- so I don't agree with the equal protection argument.  I find the religious freedom argument spurious -- there are lots of religious practices that are not legally condoned.  I don't agree with the right to privacy argument, either.  People have the right to do what they want in their own bedrooms ... but there is no right to marriage.

JB

Permalink Reply by Adrian Miranda on January 9, 2013 at 11:36am

I agree with you Jack, I personally do not believe that it was in Gods/Natures design for homosexuality, it is obviously impossible for them to reproduce therefore in a form fits function sense there is no need or function in nature for homosexual creatures.  Not calling gay people creatures but they always have some obscure comment about how many aniimals exhibit homosexual behavior, it does not hold water.

Permalink Reply by Paul_of_TX on January 9, 2013 at 11:54am

That is an attempt to claim how homosexuality is all right, good, natural and should be accepted. This is just about the only time they look to nature as support for any of their beliefs. What you see in the animal kingdom is not homosexuality but most of the time more bullying and a show of dominance.

If we are going to look to the animal kingdom to find what we should find acceptable behavior then should we also allow bullying, killing, canibalism, eating ones young, neglect of offspring, fighting (even killing) other males around so that you can mate with a female?

Permalink Reply by Adrian Miranda on January 9, 2013 at 12:09pm

If i am understanding you correctly the list of things that should not be accepted bullying canibalism etc. should include homesexuality? 

To the point that homosexual behavior is NOT acceptable.  Is that your intent?

Permalink Reply by Paul_of_TX on January 9, 2013 at 12:24pm

You and I are in agreement on this subject.

Permalink Reply by Liam S. on January 9, 2013 at 12:22pm

"in a form fits function sense there is no need or function in nature for homosexual creatures."

This is not demonstrated. It does not serve an obvious breeding purpose, but there may be other social, or evolutionary ones we do not understand. 

The argument that many animals demonstrate homosexual behaviors, is not to make a moral judgement (good/bad) but simply to state the obvious, it is not "unnatural" as it is so often characterized. It is very natural as is demonstrated throughout the animal kingdom - but as Paul points out, many things are natural ... both good and bad. 

Making a moral call on it requires other criteria.

Permalink Reply by Paul_of_TX on January 9, 2013 at 12:28pm

I would say homosexuality (in the sense that humans do it) in the animal kingdom is almost nonexistent.

Permalink Reply by Liam S. on January 9, 2013 at 12:34pm

Romantic love as humans do it, is also nearly non-existent. *shrug*

Certainly homosexual relationships among the other great apes (the Bonobo, for instance) are very similar. I'm no biologist or animal behavioralist though, and will have to leave that conversation to others.

Permalink Reply by Paul_of_TX on January 9, 2013 at 12:53pm

Same sex contact does exist. I don't know of any animals that chose same sex relationships and have no interest is sexual relations with the opposite sex.

Some birds stay in relationships for life and the pair stick together and care for each other. I would say that pretty closely resembles our romantic relationship. They lack the ability to write poetry to each other like we do. Which might be just another reason to not look into the animal kingdom for what we consider to be normal or right.

It is easy to find animals that kill their young. We as humans do not tolerate this and Andrea Yates was convicted of doing just that. In my opinion we are above animals and their behavior should not influence who we chose to act.

Permalink Reply by Liam S. on January 9, 2013 at 2:01pm

I conceded most of your points already, and as I said, am no specialist in animal behavior. Any confirmation or refutation of your understanding of animal homosexuality will have to come from elsewhere.

I agree, what they do should not influence how we act, I'm merely suggesting that the "unnatural" argument is false. Not right versus wrong. 

Permalink Reply by Shane on January 9, 2013 at 2:31pm

It is easy to find animals that kill their young. We as humans do not tolerate this and Andrea Yates was convicted of doing just that. In my opinion we are above animals and their behavior should not influence who we chose to act.

In our country, for the most part.  The debate isn't settled in other modern Western cultures WRT official policy, and many modern countries allow for post-partum depression as an affirmative defense.  Also, infanticide is still practiced in modern Eastern cultures, as well as pre-industrial cultures throughout the world, as a matter of official policy.

Permalink Reply by Cisco Carson on January 9, 2013 at 4:20pm

I'll buy you a one way ticket to visit it Paul.

http://www.nhm.uio.no/besok-oss/utstillinger/skiftende/againstnatur...

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 6
• 7
• 8
• 9
• 10
• …
• 52
• Next ›
• Page