So gay!!!

[Hopper]

https://www.innovations-report.com/html/reports/life_sciences/report-16507.html

Hmmm, Mo, says there: "But for some species, humans included, homosexual behavior may have no adaptive value at all. ’’Looking for any single conceptual framework to explain homosexual behavior is an unattainable goal,’’ says Vasey, one of the leading researchers on homosexual behavior.

Unattainable goal to explain non-adaptive homosexual behavior with a conceptual framework? Like, whooda thunk, eh?

"’’People often look to animals to decide for themselves what’s natural and what’s not natural,’’ says Vasey. ’’I don’t think that’s necessarily a good thing to do. I mean, animals engage in cannibalism and infanticide. They also don’t take care of elderly individuals. Just because animals do something doesn’t make it right or wrong.’’ Again, like, who knew, I ax ya?

Sexual selection theory helped Darwin explain many traits, especially in males, that otherwise seemed maladaptive. Many behaviors do not fit sexual selection theory, however. ’’The whole context for Darwin’s theory of sexual selection is dissolving,’’ says Roughgarden. ’’So, Darwin is incorrect in the particulars, but more importantly, [his theory of sexual selection] is inadequate even as an approach.’’ How many times have I heard that sexual behavior is determined by genes as has supposedly all been proven beyond dispute, I wonder?

 

[moevillini]

What, that link says that sex has social meaning beyond that of just reproduction?

DUH!

Why do you think marriage exists in the first place?

DUH!

So we can argue about it, here, on Jazzfanz.

DUH!!!

 

[Hopper]

DUH!

So we can argue about it, here, on Jazzfanz.

DUH!!!

Mo, ya know what? It aint really that cute for you to try haulin evolutionary theory into a thread that's already about homosexuals, eh? Last time that happened, probably 50-60 pages of posts come outta it. Come to think about it, you probably started all the crap that time, too. Ya just some kinda trouble-maker, like 24/7, that it?

 

[chemdude1232]

Setting frameworks (conceptual or not) and the sexuality of animals aside, I want to bring light to the topic originally posted about: essentially, should homosexuals be allowed to marry? That is, can the heterosexual establishment find it in their hearts to allow the homosexual establishment the usage of a single, solitary word: marriage.

This topic has had a lot of traffic today and there have been many arguments made for and against gay marriage. I voiced my two cents, got into a relatively tense back-and-forth with dissenting opinions (mainly championed by Bean), and watched some other members give their opinions.

I've spent the intervening time reading the posts and thinking about gay marriage and have come to this conclusion: being heterosexual, it is easy for us to sit in our ivory towers and besmirch the notion of gay marriage. We simply lack the proper frame of reference to truly denounce (what I understand to be) the true and honest love two homosexuals can have for each other. Can you honestly say you'd be against gay marriage if you yourself were gay? Answer honestly, please. Again, I raise one of my original questions (which no one really ever bothered to answer)...who are we to deny homosexuals access to something as basic as the word "marriage?" How truly petty can we be that it can infuriate us to that extent? Finally, who cares what two consenting adults do behind closed doors with their clothes off; and does it really actually matter if they say they are married or not?

Bean raised the concern that biology is a trump card against allowing marriage to apply to homosexuals. "They cannot procreate, ergo they cannot enter into marriage," is a paraphrasing of his message. Isn't it a sign of intelligence to be willing to reexamine the definition of a word and evolve its meaning to be just a bit less elitist? In 1856, the Supreme Court of the US of A ruled that black people were not considered "human beings" if they were slaves. That notion sounds ludicrous, doesn't it? Well get this: we evolved the word "human" to finally include African Americans. We made progress on that day. And we made more progress today by allowing gay marriage.

Thus ends my soapbox on the issue. I promise

 

[sirkickyass]

not because the policy is fair or wise (it isn’t) but because it represents a reasonable judgment that the people of California are entitled to make

The entire last segment of the decision today goes to this isue: that there is no legitimate state interest in creating a law that discriminates based upon sexual orientation. If there is no legitimate state interest then the 14th amendment indicates that the people of California are NOT entitled to make that judgment, that power has been specifically stripped from them via the equal protection clause.

The judge considered six possible rationales for the state having an 'interest' and rejected all of them: (" (1) reserving marriage as a union between a man and a woman and excluding any other relationship from marriage; (2) proceeding with caution when implementing social changes; (3) promoting opposite-sex parenting over same-sex parenting; (4) protecting the freedom of those who oppose marriage for same-sex couples; (5) treating same-sex couples differently from opposite-sex couples; and (6) any other conceivable interest.")

For those who have an interest in why the court found no legitimate state interest on these issues the discussion is located on pages 123-132.

 

[Hopper]

AND...

https://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/04/magazine/04animals-t.html?_r=1&ref=science

Can Animals Be Gay?

"It seemed that certain females were somehow finding opportunities to quickly copulate with males but incubating their eggs — and doing everything else an albatross does while at the colony — with other females." I don't see the mystery here, eh? The guy runs off, then the wimminz raise alla chillinz. What else is new?

 

[Hopper]

.The judge considered six possible rationales for the state having an 'interest' and rejected all of them:

Yeah, Kicky, the guy wrote 136 pages, so ya know he was, uhhh, shall we say "dedicated," eh? Big whoop. Like I done said:

Unconstitutional according to? One homosexual judge in San Francisco, eh? Like, whooda thunk, I ax ya? "It was likely that a homosexual judge would rule in his own interest so this was no big surprise to me," Nelson said minutes after Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker, who is gay, made his verdict public."

 

[chemdude1232]

Yeah, Kicky, the guy wrote 136 pages, so ya know he was, uhhh, shall we say "dedicated," eh? Big whoop. Like I done said:

Unconstitutional according to? One homosexual judge in San Francisco, eh? Like, whooda thunk, I ax ya? "It was likely that a homosexual judge would rule in his own interest so this was no big surprise to me," Nelson said minutes after Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker, who is gay, made his verdict public."

Unconstitutional to *all* those who wish to pursue gay marriage, methinks.

 

[Hopper]

Unconstitutional to *all* those who wish to pursue gay marriage, methinks.

Well, mebbe most all, eh, Chem? I just quoted a gay marriage advocate and practioner who thought otherwise. Ya see that?

 

[chemdude1232]

Well, mebbe most all, eh, Chem? I just quoted a gay marriage advocate and practioner who thought otherwise. Ya see that?

Hence the phrase "pursue gay marriage." Those who want to actively pursue gay marriage will be for it.

 

[Hopper]

Hence the phrase "pursue gay marriage." Those who want to actively pursue gay marriage will be for it.

Well, not sure we're on the same page, here, eh, Chem? The guy I quoted is supposed to be strongly in favor of gay marriage and active in seeking to have it legitimatized nationwide. He thinks all prohibitions against it are unfair and unjust. He just doesn't think its prohibition is "unconstitutional," that's all.

 

[chemdude1232]

Let me include this quickly, Hoppy:

The Williams Institute at the UCLA School of Law estimates, based on the 2005/06 American Community Survey, that ~8.8M people in the US are gay. Of those 8.8 million, I would be inclined to think the far and vast majority of them are for gay marriage.