Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Adrian Miranda on January 9, 2013 at 5:17pm

Kind of glad this was brought up.  While there are no precise figures one estimate of known and catagorized animalia there are 0.15% who exhibit homosexual behavior.  Out of  the Predicted amount of anamalia 0.019% exhibit homosexual behavior.

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/08/110823180459.htm

Permalink Reply by Liam S. on January 9, 2013 at 5:40pm

Adrian -

Where are you getting those percentages? I do not see them in the linked Science Daily article. Also, it would be interesting to see how that breakdown works for larger classifications (by order, perhaps, or even genera where we do have a deeper catalog of experience)

What I do see is that we know very nothing about 86% of all species on land (and 91% in the sea) - seems arrogant to say conclusively we know enough about nature to say something is not clearly and frequently encompassed within it. 

Permalink Reply by Adrian Miranda on January 9, 2013 at 6:17pm

Liam- went to the website for the homosexual museum which stated more than 1500 species exhibit homosexual behavior, then what i thought may be a credible website for amount of animal species and with a calculator did the math.  While they are an aproximation they do paint the picture to some extent.

Permalink Reply by Liam S. on January 9, 2013 at 6:26pm

Remember though that the Kingdom Animalia not only includes the 100 or so species of monkey and ape, but also the 40 million or so species of beetle. 

 

This can skew statistics into irrelevance if we are not more specific in what we are looking at and why. Ultimately, I don't think this changes my point any though. I was just curious about the source.

Permalink Reply by JonEdanger on January 9, 2013 at 6:30pm

No gay beetles?

Permalink Reply by Liam S. on January 9, 2013 at 6:38pm

Jon - now that you mention it:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/11/081104-homosexual-b...

Permalink Reply by Adrian Miranda on January 9, 2013 at 11:00pm

Liam I agree, however I do not know if groups that like to use other animals approach constrain themselves to those types of animals. And i was a little leary about posting the numbers becaue it does include some rather obscure animals but the I believe some type of loose analogy was made about animals that exhibit homosexual behavior would be so much of a statistical outlier that they would most likely be neglected in an analysis.

Permalink Reply by Shane on January 10, 2013 at 1:36am

It doesn't matter if they are "outliers" or statistically insignificant.  If it occurs at all in nature, it is not unnatural.

Permalink Reply by Liam S. on January 8, 2013 at 11:29pm

What they cannot do, is marry the (adult, consenting, etc.) person they love, and receive the same federal and often state benefits regarding taxation, visitation, property, insurance, etc. that others do because of the sex of their partner, and no other factor.

 

And it was only very recently that homosexuality was not an imprisonable crime in many states - so in a very real sense, it was a civil rights issue. Whether it still is, in the USA, is up for debate. Certainly, there does remain a disparity between a homosexual committed couple and a heterosexual committed couple from a civic standpoint.

Jack and I will disagree that being "permitted to marry someone of the opposite sex" is truly equal - since it entirely removes love and desire from the equation. But then, there have always been marriages that had nothing to do with love and desire, so - meh. 

Permalink Reply by Adrian Miranda on January 9, 2013 at 11:30am

Liam, good points however it seems to come to down to an ethos of todays morality.  While man and woman CAN get married brother/sister  or parent/child CANNOT.....should they be allowed to?  It is against the morality of nature adn offensive to even think about.  

 

Recently is an ambigous time line, and i would offer that there are very antiquated laws on the books that are not taken seriously such as striking your spouse or killing a mormon, where is the outcry for them?   Not directed to you Liam, just in general.

The real issue to me is why does the government have a say in who i cover in my insurance policy?  If i want to insure the neighbor who does this hurt? 

 

 

Permalink Reply by StaggerLee on January 9, 2013 at 12:16pm

And it was only very recently that homosexuality was not an imprisonable crime in many states - so in a very real sense, it was a civil rights issue. Whether it still is, in the USA, is up for debate. –Liam S

 

…it seems to come to down to an ethos of today’s morality. -Adrian Miranda

 

The logjam over gay marriage isn’t about marriage at all. The root issue over homosexuality’s place, standing, role, approval, or whatever the appropriate term is, in society has yet to be definitively determined so any expectation for corollary issues such as homosexual marriage to be satisfactorily resolved is ludicrous.

 

As I said earlier, government and politics has always been about social engineering.  What are they engineering if not the future ethos of morality they envision for the society they are in control of?  It is a game of strategy, of small incremental steps to advance toward that envisioned morality. Fortunately, In America, the people have a direct say in influencing the direction of that advancement. At least we are supposed to!

Permalink Reply by Liam S. on January 9, 2013 at 12:30pm

While man and woman CAN get married brother/sister  or parent/child CANNOT.....should they be allowed to?  It is against the morality of nature adn offensive to even think about.

 

There are good medical (and evolutionary) and psychological reasons (harm/coercion/power imbalance) why incest and child brides, etc. are prohibited. There is little to suggest opposition to homosexual marriages have similar rationale behind it. 

 

Recently is an ambigous time line, and i would offer that there are very antiquated laws on the books that are not taken seriously such as striking your spouse or killing a mormon, where is the outcry for them?   Not directed to you Liam, just in general.

 

Recently as in, within the past 20-30 years (in the US, still an ongoing issue elsewhere). But, double standards abound, I do not disagree. 

 

The real issue to me is why does the government have a say in who i cover in my insurance policy?  If i want to insure the neighbor who does this hurt?

 

It's rare that the government has a problem with you including people... it's the exclusion - especially on relatively arbitrary grounds (sex, race, religion) that they have a problem with. Whether they have the right to make laws to that effect, is a whole other conversation.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 7
• 8
• 9
• 10
• 11
• …
• 52
• Next ›
• Page