If Rubystreak will allow me to share an answer.
Serious answers:
Highly humorous (imho) and inspired by real science:
Depends on what you mean by “not going to happen.” We’ve already got gay marriage in two states. We’ll probably have it in New York before too long. We’re going to have another vote on the subject in California in 2010, and without the massive voter turnout caused by the recent presidential election, we’ll almost certainly pass it. Will we have gay marriage in every state of the union in our lifetimes? Maybe, maybe not. It seems impossible that some place like Alabama would ever legalize it. But then again, these sorts of social changes, when they come, come quick. Look at race in Alabama in 1950, and look again in 1970. Twenty years isn’t really that long, and yet, there was an enormous sea change in the attitude towards civil rights in that time period. If you compare the fight for racial equality to the fight for sexual equality, the thing that stands out most is how much faster we’re moving. Will we see total equality for gay rights in our lifetime in America? I don’t know for sure, but I can tell you that I intend to live for a good while longer, and I’ve little doubt that things are going to change considerably before I’m done here.
In what way does this create pressure on SSM opponents?
It’s a bit maddening. Plenty of things codified by law in our society are pretty unnatural, like the Earned Income Tax Credit, the entire FCC, drivers’ licenses, etc. But let a loving couple get married and all of a sudden it’s Bible Time and we gotta start making shit illegal.
What is this, a reading quiz? Congratulations, you passed. Now how about you address my arguments?
How ironic. I think you mean “your morality on others”, by the way.
The wiki article comes from basically one source.
Male-male penetrative actions are still extremely rare. “Bonding” is much more common, buttfucking seems much rarer. We must be careful to humanize animal behaviour.
“Acroos-the-board” is still wrong
I just read the following passage in “The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier and Clay” and I thought of this thread:
Outliern: I’ll try to be clearer.
You have a standard* by which you judge other people’s actions as “so bad” that you will oppose those actions. This opposition goes way beyond “if you don’t like…”. You give the example of child abuse and I’m sure that even if shown to be a genetic characteristic of the abuser you would oppose it. you would force your morality on others**.
Your standard is “it hurts others”, other may differ.
DON’T LIKE SMOKING?, DON’T GO TO PLACES WHERE PEOPLE SMOKE
- Of course you didn’t invent it out of the blue.
** I can play that game too.
Nava: No, that -in itself- doesn’t make it right or wrong.
Hostile: Societies will always force a group of its members to (not) do things they like. Of course I tries my hand at irony. As to “natural” it is the other way around (as I present it). The fact exists even without laws (marriage, theft, trade), laws are how a society deals with the reality. Taxes are not natural in that sense, they don’t exist without laws.
You’re going to have to define “across the board”, it would seem. Also, I think we must be just as careful not to de-emphasize the animal nature of human behavior. And lastly, since you seem to prioritize precedents of male-to-male penetration being observed as a behavior of other species, what are your thoughts about the female-to-female behaviors discussed in the above links?
But you will concede will you not that the Darfur genocide IS, by its very definition, harmful to many, that it does have victims, that it is destructive to Sudan, that it is a violent action with horrible consequences to those concerned, neh? I am not personally affected either, but I can show you the statistics/the photos of those who have been, you can go to a refugee camp, read libraries of literature attesting to atrocities and deaths directly attributible to the Sudanese wars. *This is the litmus of “damage”- not “does it do X unnecessary harm?” (be X a particular person or group of people) but simply “does it do unnecessary harm? Is there a provable victim of any kind?”
Where is the demonstrable harm in gay marriage? Whose quantity or quality of life is reduced because of its existence?
Thank you. Bonding is the only thing that should be of anyone else’s business.
You mean “pair bonding”, which is romantic in nature. Anyway, the fact is that homosexual and bisexual desire and behavior are commonly observed across a massive number of species, and who knows whether the Mexican mollies were lying on the survey?
Seriously, though, we have provided a massive amount of evidence for naturally occurring homosexuality throughout the animal kingdom, thereby going above and beyond your demand for citations. Do you have any cites for your own outrageous claims?
What the fuck are you on about?
I think you’re saying that “marriage” exists even without laws. But what do you mean:
A) Churches grant marriages? Fine, but lots of churches are happy to grant same-sex marriages too.
B) The concept of perpetual monogamy and the sharing of expenses, burdens, joys, and everything that goes along with daily life, exists even without laws? Absolutely true. And it exists everywhere for same-sex couples too, which is exactly why we expect the law to respect our marriages in exactly the same way as it respects other marriages.
Why should we be denied our basic civil rights just because you have a stick up your ass about it?
How does this differ from
DON’T LIKE SSM?, DON’T ATTEND ONE
It substaintially differs from
I DON’T LIKE SMOKING, SO YOU CAN’T SMOKE HERE, THERE, EVER, ANYWHERE
Hostile: No, I don’t. “Romantic” implies feelings which, at least in the human sense, animals don’t have. “Bonding” may not have been the best word but I tried to say that it passes information that is not directly related to survival (i.e. “run away” or “food here”. The “desire” and “behaviour” you speak about is, again, mostly non-penetrative, so its “sexuality” is not obvious.
I’d go for “B” but your bold assertion that SSM exists everywherey is patently false. Even societies in which same-sex intercourse was not-frowned-upon/ accepted / expected / prefered SSM did not exist and I don0t imagine it was in most of those people’s head.
Buttfucking and ass-probing is not my thing, no stick up my ass. I’m not denying anyone a “right”, simply because it doesn’t exist.
Outliern: It’s you who’s saying “DON’T LIKE SMOKING, NEVER SMOKE WHERE I CAN SEE IT OR SMELL IT”
Do you have a cite for this absurd claim? ETA: Also, what is “the human sense” of romance, and how would it be relevant whether or not animals have “the human sense” of anything? Wouldn’t it automatically be assumed that animals don’t have “the human sense” of anything, and therefore wouldn’t the question be moot?
Cite?
Cite?
That is a patently absurd claim. Penetration is not necessary for actions to be sexual.
Actually, my assertion is not bold at all; it is supported by the millions of same-sex couples all over the world who live boring, committed lives together much like opposite-sex couples. Do you have a cite for your claim? Who are “those people” who have never thought of settling down with anyone, and why does it matter whether or not some proportion of the population are disinclined to marry? Remember, that’s pretty common among heterosexuals too.
You sure fooled me. So far all I’m seeing is a combinaton of FUD and right-wing talking points with no actual data to back up the broadly insane assertions you’re pulling out of that cavernous abyss, while we’ve provided all of the data you’ve asked for and then some.
If the concept of same-sex marriage doesn’t exist, why do you think we’re fighting for it and have in fact been granted that right in and several countries and a handful of states?
What I was trying to point out is that gays don’t chose their sexual orientation any more than you or I did. Now, since they didn’t chose it any more than they chose their eye color, it means God made them that way, right? So why do you reject God’s work?
As for the “non penetrative” clause you’ve popped up several times, I love those of you guys who think lesbians don’t have sex unless strap-ons are involved.
Pair bonding and love eh?
Oxytocinis always fun for that stuff! Oxytocin & Pair Bonding a starter link of information I think the wiki link is way better though, but I’ve seen the other link passed about as well.
From the wiki:
But yeah, many of the behaviors we as humans exhibit come about due to neurotransmitters and genetics- things which can be found in other species as well. So to say whether or not “Romantic feelings” is or isn’t present in other species, well that’s not yet possible, as we cannot know what they are experiencing, only that some animals have similar mechanisms as we humans do, and they exhibit similar behaviors to us when those mechanisms are stimulated (or vice-versa - who knows?).
The research still needs to be done, but its a fascinating topic to be explored. Good luck with that.
Anything’s possible, as long as Ají de Gallina says so. The fun part is that it doesn’t have to have a shred of truth or be based at all on rational thought; if s/he says it, it’s The Law.
The Supreme Court seems to disagree with you.
Loving v. Virginia 388 U.S. 1 (1967)
Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374 (1978)
There are others as well of course, but those are two of the biggies. Zablonski involves the marital rights of prisoners as does Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 it was held that the State of Missouri violated the rights of prisoners by requiring them to receive permission from the prison superintendent to marry. Of the convicted murderers from the Manson Family, Tex Watson and Bobby Beausoleil have married (Watson has several children conceived in prison) and Susan Atkins has married twice, all since their incarceration and all protected by the SCotUS because, again,
So, if you’re saying that the right to marry doesn’t exist then you express your ignorance on a more international platform. Denmark has placed same-sex (or gender neutral or whatever you want to call it) marriage on par with any other marriage for almost 20 years, all of the Scandinavian countries have followed suit, as have Spain, Belgium, Germany, Canada, and other nations, while the United Kingdom has given same sex couples the same rights as marriage if not the name (which I can certainly live with- call it what you want, it’s the rights that are sought). Even Israel- a nation completely founded upon and inextricably wrapped around the practitioners of a religion whose scripture calls homosexuality (by some interpretations) abominable and anathema, legally recognizes same sex unions of its citizens so long as they are performed in other nations. So there too, from the “doesn’t exist” standpoint, art thou of shit most full and heavy.
If neither of these address what you meant, would you care to rephrase your assertion to show what does not exist?
What rapier wit. A good thing for you that others are inclined to fuck assholes for if they weren’t you’d die a virgin.
snerk
Olberman made quite the passionate plea against Prop 8 earlier this evening. (Warning: loud and obnoxious animated ad preceeded both of my viewings of this vid. The animation looks good though. Reminds me of the Animatrix. Something called Dead Space…)
While he truly seemed to be upset by the whole Prop 8 thing, I couldn’t help but think of Affleck’s parody on SNL as I watched that. Enough with the swivelling towards the camera, Keith!