S.F. Gives finger to Feds, Ok's same sex marriages...

[mythosx]

Originally posted by chocobo_cid
"Choice" implies that Homosexuality is a choice, though it isn't. There have been documented cases of animals that have tried to indulge in homosexual unions.

I don't know about you, but I think that if animals, as they have no discernable ability to make conscious decisions are able to be homosexual, that makes a pretty good argument for homosexuality being just as natural as heterosexuality. Though children cannot be produced in a purely homosexual union without adoption or artificail insemination, they still occur naturally.

No strong evidence for that. Only naturally occuring case of homosexuality in nature are some obscure african frogs who after a generation with too few males or females can and will change sex. The only other time homosexuality has been observed in animals are rats, in labratory expirements. The trauma of being cramped in a small place with too many other rats produces a traumatic effect on the rats that manifests in violence, homosexual acts, and psychological break down. Makes you want to write your congressman and ask them to rethink the prison system.

Well put spiderman. I do realize that incest and polygamy are stronger argumants. However, I did bring up the nastier stuff for a reason. Istanbul kept saying things like "justice" and decency or something like that, was "self evident". Those are faith based statements. Although person might not be religious, many tend to think they own beliefs are self-evident. My tactic didn't work as many didn't stop to consider what I was saying and were totally grossed out. I in no way condone pedophilia or animal poking. Anyone who sends me N.A.M.B.L.A. information will be immeadiately reported to the local authorities.

 

[chocobo_cid]

There are also Penguins, Dolphins, and Goats. Most mammals can be homosexual. Also, "changing sex" is different than homoseuality.

http://www.sensualism.com/gay/

 

[mythosx]

like i said there are documented cases of homosexuality in lab animals when you confine them into small areas. Such as the zoo. I don't believe I have ever seen any documented cases in the wild. Cept for those frogs.

 

[train]

the frogs are not homo - they change - not choose...

and if the government was to stop sodomization because it hurt the human body - the porn industry would have no "actors"

 

[Reverend Love]

Originally posted by train
the frogs are not homo

Thanks Train.

 

[Chaos Turtle]

Hiya. Just thought I'd poke in here for a moment. I just love reading these threads even though I rarely respond to them. I keep seeing something that bugs me, and it being misinformation compels me to dispute it, so here goes:

Homosexuality (bisexuality, too) does occur outside of controlled situations in nature -- non-human nature that is, for the nitpickity among us -- about as commonly as it occurs in human nature. Not just mammals, either. Not just in the lab, or in zoos, but in natural habitats being non-intrusively observed.

Try this link ( http://www.bidstrup.com/sodomy.htm ) just to get you started.

In the interest of full disclosure, I remind you that I am gay, or bisexual, or whatever label you'd like to paste on me.

 

[Spiderman]

Like chocobo_cid said, I think changing sex is different from homosexuality... can't remember the term for it though.

mythosx:

I do realize that incest and polygamy are stronger argumants. However, I did bring up the nastier stuff for a reason.

I was thinking, those "laws" would still apply to homosexuals, they're not exclusive. It's a different restriction, that's all, but it's the same as marriage.

 

[train]

Those laws would still apply as they don't specify sex in their definitions - just the concepts of "marriage" and "sex" with family...

Scientists find herbicide causes frog sex change

Thursday, October 31, 2002
By Reuters

LONDON - One of the world's most popular weedkillers, atrazine, is common in water and could be having a sex-change effect on amphibians, according to a report Wednesday.

American scientists have discovered a strong link between atrazine and hermaphrodite tendencies observed in wild leopard frogs across the U.S. Midwest.

The research by a team from the University of California at Berkeley is published in the science journal Nature.

The team took water samples at various locations and found that only one site had atrazine levels below their detection limit. "This site was the only locality where testicular oocytes were not observed in the local population of leopard frogs," they wrote. Oocytes are egg mother cells.

The scientists said atrazine was the most commonly used herbicide in the United States and probably in the world and was found in high concentrations even in nonfarming areas.

"The hermaphroditism was not evident in the absence of atrazine exposure. We conclude that atrazine is responsible for these effects in wild populations even though other contaminants may be present that could produce similar effects," they said.

The report also warned that the sex change effects might not be limited to leopard frogs but might be a threat to all amphibian species.

"As its effects are not restricted to a single species, it is possible that this herbicide may pose a threat to amphibians in general," it said. "Most water sources in the United States, including rain, contain more atrazine than the effective doses determined in laboratory studies," the report said.

It concluded with a call for further investigations into the link between atrazine and sex organ abnormalities in amphibians.

 

[mythosx]

Crazy frogs and pesticides...Stay away from drugs kids or you will get a sex change....I think....

As far as changing the definition of marriage goes. By allowing the change of sexual roles in a marriages you are changing the definition. Why is it that it is ok for a group of people to only change one part of the definition. (sex of partners) instead of other aspects of the definition (number of partner, relation of partners, species of partners) It just isn't fair.

I was thinking, those "laws" would still apply to homosexuals, they're not exclusive. It's a different restriction, that's all, but it's the same as marriage.

Isn't this the same thing I said about heterosexual marriages? The same restrictions still apply we are all still being allowed the same thing.

 

[mythosx]

Originally posted by Chaos Turtle
Hiya. Just thought I'd poke in here for a moment. I just love reading these threads even though I rarely respond to them. I keep seeing something that bugs me, and it being misinformation compels me to dispute it, so here goes:

Homosexuality (bisexuality, too) does occur outside of controlled situations in nature -- non-human nature that is, for the nitpickity among us -- about as commonly as it occurs in human nature. Not just mammals, either. Not just in the lab, or in zoos, but in natural habitats being non-intrusively observed.

Try this link ( http://www.bidstrup.com/sodomy.htm ) just to get you started.

In the interest of full disclosure, I remind you that I am gay, or bisexual, or whatever label you'd like to paste on me.

Thanks for the link chaos turtle. It was a good read. However, I found one thing lacking in it. I don't see any sources cited.

 

[Spiderman]

Originally posted by mythosx

As far as changing the definition of marriage goes. By allowing the change of sexual roles in a marriages you are changing the definition. Why is it that it is ok for a group of people to only change one part of the definition. (sex of partners) instead of other aspects of the definition (number of partner, relation of partners, species of partners) It just isn't fair.

Like someone said (SeFRo), the definition of "marriage" is not universal but particular to a certain country. In some you can marry relations or have multiple partners. In the US, the focus just happens to be on sexual preference, who knows what the future will bring? (Realistically, probably not a lot in terms of relations or number of partners but anything's possible).

Isn't this the same thing I said about heterosexual marriages? The same restrictions still apply we are all still being allowed the same thing.

It might have been, it may have gotten lost. What I was saying was that legalizing homosexual marriages doesn't change existing pedophile or incest laws, homosexuals can still get in trouble if they go after a young 'un or a relation, same as heterosexuals.

The way you were bringing them up, it just sounded like if this change to marriage is such a fundamental change, why not change other "fundamental laws" (and maybe to you it is, I guess I'm saying it isn't, really).

 

[chocobo_cid]

Originally posted by mythosx
Thanks for the link chaos turtle. It was a good read. However, I found one thing lacking in it. I don't see any sources cited.

What about:

Biological Exhuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity

While only one source, it would be hard for someone to find an unbiased source. Apparently, both sides have some shady articles on the subject. Not that that statement proves either point...

 

[train]

By allowing the change of sexual roles in a marriages you are changing the definition

What about gender roles?... or social roles?...

 

[chocobo_cid]

Those have undergone major changes in their common definitions that people (not nessesarily mythosx) are still trying to deny.

 

[Senori]

mythosx: You act as though those roles have never been changed before.

 

[Chaos Turtle]

Originally posted by mythosx
Thanks for the link chaos turtle. It was a good read. However, I found one thing lacking in it. I don't see any sources cited.

Fair enough. In my defense, I was in a hurry and on a Pocket PC.

I really would like to provide some better evidence, but as been noted there is a dearth of serious unbiased research on the subject.

Not that none exists, only that it's hard to track down (hence the "just to get you started").

Just the same, I'll stand by my assertion that homosexuality exists in nature. Not that it has any bearing on the marriage issue. Honestly, I don't care about gay marriage per se, only that people don't get fair treatment under the law based upon their sexual orientation.

Obviously, arguing the point of morality is unproductive, as there will never be consensus on that, which is why I generally stay out of such discussions. As far as I'm concerned, everyone here has valid points from their own perspectives.

After all, I think that surgical cosmetic "improvements" are deviant and unnatural. I sure don't presume to tell those people what to do with themselves though.

I only want to know that I don't have to worry about losing my job, apartment, or the other things that "straight" people take for granted for no reason other than that someone disagrees with my choosing to be the only thing I can be without hurting anyone else at all.

 

[Spiderman]

Honestly, I don't care about gay marriage per se, only that people don't get fair treatment under the law based upon their sexual orientation.

That's really what I'm after too. If civil unions or some other structure came about that gave the same rights as marriage, I'd be fine with that. It's just that it appears that "marriage" is where it's being concentrated right now.

 

[Notepad]

After all this talk, it still hasn't been answered to me, the burning question I asked at the beginning when this thread was started: Will I someday, if laws change, ever be able to marry Cathy Nickoloff or Martha Stewart?

Wait...they're women...not relatives...human...and well over 18...

Hmm, looks like I got the wrong thread. The marriage thing threw me off. Please people, make your titles more specific so they can't be mixed up with other threads with similar titles!

 

[Notepad]

Originally posted by Reverend Love
Thanks Train.

Even though you did this first, I must also. The line is friggen awesome! Beats out Istanbul's "304 cards...approximately one buttload" that I was gonna use until I saw this.

 

[train]

In another sig...

honored - I really am...