A failure to grant rights that are deserved could kinda be considered a violation of those rights. During slavery, blacks' rights weren't violated because they never had rights -- but I would still consider the actions of slaveowners as violating their slaves' rights, despite the fact that the slaves didn't officially have such rights.
I see where you're coming from but do not believe rights, in the sense that we're talking, are something to be granted.
All people have certain universal, inalienable rights that colonial Americans accurately (IMO) summed up as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That those rights were denied to blacks during slavery did not mean they didn't exist. Their rights were being violated.
I don't believe that's the case with gays in the United States and fail to see a universal, inalienable right that the United States must recognize marriage amongst everyone.
If the USA gets out of the marriage business altogether, which I would whole heatedly support, would that mean everyone's rights were suddenly violated? If the USA ceases to exist in 100 years, does that mean rights will be forever violated going forward? As a single male, does it mean that my rights are currently being violated because the government will not recognize me as married until I legally marry a woman?
You're attempting to draw parallels between the treatment of gays and slaves that just don't exist.
As I explained above, I am not talking in any sense whatsoever about slaves.
I am commenting on the very real and obvious parallel between the discrimination against people based on their ethnicity, and the discrimintaion against people based on their sexual orientation.
Do you have anything behind your opinions that would address my points above?
I don't believe that's the case with gays in the United States and fail to see a universal, inalienable right that the United States must recognize marriage amongst everyone.
You do realize that the fight for gay rights is not about gay marriage, right?
Yes, it's part of it, here in the US, but it's obviously very far from the whole thing!
You do also realize that the article and post that spawned this conversation were about the decriminalization of homosexuality itself?
We're talking about a lot more than marriage.
On the other hand: you say that you believe we have, as an inalienable right, the pursuit of happiness. And yet you say you can't see what inalienable right is being denied gays?
Wouldn't it be easier to simply spell out each and every hardship and violation of rights gay Americans face on a daily basis rather than to tell me it's only part of the problem each time I make a point? I just don't see all the discrimination you see.
Well, like I said, it's small potatoes to the people who don't have to go through it...
Of course, I have yet to see you make much of a point, quite honestly.
What it would be easier to is to actually explain your points, and respond to mine instead of being defensive to the point of silliness.
You don't seem to like addressing many of the points that others bring up.
I am beginning to think you just missed being a troll, quite frankly...
From: The Happy Hunting Grounds... Insane since: Mar 2001
posted 06-08-2009 09:03
Wow.
You know Jestah, in all the years that I have had contact with you on these boards, it is the first time I can recall that you refer to me being "dishonest".
I suppose I should probably react to that, but as I do not think it would in any way, shape, or form make a difference in your perception, that instead I will just go along with your suggestion and not discuss things with you, seeing that you are the one jumping to conclusions.
Jestah, if you truly were interested in what sort of unequal treatment Homosexuals face everyday, you have one of the most powerful tools at your disposal - the internet.
Research it.
WebShaman | The keenest sorrow (and greatest truth) is to recognize ourselves as the sole cause of all our adversities.
- Sophocles
Jestah....
As long as you deal with athiest they will never see your view even when the facts are in front of them.
Your well thoughout very convincing views will never satisfy them. They will say you never have a convincing argument because their ideology is very different from the masses.
I don't believe gays are discriminated against either.. They,,,the homosexuals activist will never be at peace as long as they are considered "abnormal" in their sexual prefernces/tendencies for the same sex. Everything else about them in behavior will be considered as normal. So I don't see much discriminaton only what they choose to label as discrimination.
And where has any "well thought out very convincing view" been presented that supports the views you state on the subject?
Certainly not in this thread...
And what facts, exactly, are in front of us that you feel we are failing to see?
From: The Happy Hunting Grounds... Insane since: Mar 2001
posted 06-08-2009 23:40
Hehe...well, I guess Jestah should know that he is on the wrong side of things here, if Jade is not only agreeing with him, but praising his posts!
Halleluja!
Jestah and Jade, on the same side of things.
Certainly some topics do make for strange bedfellows
Oh, and I can only repeat what DL has stated - what does Gay Rights have to do with Atheism and which facts have been presented that we have failed to see?
WebShaman | The keenest sorrow (and greatest truth) is to recognize ourselves as the sole cause of all our adversities.
- Sophocles
And where has any "well thought out very convincing view" been presented that supports the views you state on the subject?
Certainly not in this thread...
And what facts, exactly, are in front of us that you feel we are failing to see?
you see what i mean...you never conceed to any view opposed to yours..."like thats true...you make a good point, I can see that too...maybe" Like there could never possibly be any middle ground.
No explaination is good enough for your train of thought on some issues. Its either your way or the highway...in ideoogy. Becaues its correct for you doesn't mean its correct for the rest of the world.
Thats why posters give up on you,....your .......your..."terco".....well I said it. Its true...
Most people of religious faith are against "some gay right issues" that they feel are not based on discrimination... We can all yell discrimination in our life reagarding certian habits, choices...like:
being female.
being fat, ugly
being hispanic
being religious
being liberal
being conservative
being promiscious
being white
being black
being a jerk
being morman
being mexican
being black
being indian
being beautiful
being intelligent as opposed to being stupid
being single
being married
being in a "live in not married relationship"
being lazy
being un-academic
See...these who are listed above can claim discrimination too. Get my point.
Jestah....As long as you deal with athiest they will never see your view even when the facts are in front of them.Your well thoughout very convincing views will never satisfy them. They will say you never have a convincing argument because their ideology is very different from the masses. I don't believe gays are discriminated against either.. They,,,the homosexuals activist will never be at peace as long as they are considered "abnormal" in their sexual prefernces/tendencies for the same sex. Everything else about them in behavior will be considered as normal. So I don't see much discriminaton only what they choose to label as discrimination.
"As long as you deal with athiest they will never see your view even when the facts are in front of them..." - What facts? Please, I'd love to hear them. I love how you impose an "us versus them" mentality on everything to justify your currently unexplained and likely illogical beliefs -- all without even realizing the fallacy!
"...They will say you never have a convincing argument because their ideology is very different from the masses..." - You're one to talk. How do you know that you're part of "the masses"? For all you know, people who hate gays for no apparent logical reason could be the minority -- I certainly hope that they are.
"...I don't believe gays are discriminated against either.. They,,,the homosexuals activist will never be at peace as long as they are considered "abnormal" in their sexual prefernces/tendencies for the same sex..." - I doubt that gays are mad about being abnormal -- biologically speaking, they are very clearly abnormal, and I should hope that most of them are aware of it. The problem, though, is that we are treating them unfairly for an abnormality that is completely beyond their control. I wonder, do you approve of the unfair treatment that blacks and women received for several centuries? They were treated like shit because they had an abnormality that was completely beyond their control.
"So I don't see much discriminaton only what they choose to label as discrimination." - I'm sure that white slaveowners didn't see their brutal and unfair practices as "discrimination" either -- the only discrimination was what black slaves labeled as discrimination. Does that mean that it wasn't discrimination?
quote: jade said:
quote:WTF does this have to do with atheism? And where has any "well thought out very convincing view" been presented that supports the views you state on the subject?
Certainly not in this thread...And what facts, exactly, are in front of us that you feel we are failing to see?
e]
you see what i mean...you never conceed to any view opposed to yours..."like thats true...you make a good point, I can see that too...maybe" Like there could never possibly be any middle ground.
No explaination is good enough for your train of thought on some issues. Its either your way or the highway...in ideoogy. Becaues its correct for you doesn't mean its correct for the rest of the world. Thats why posters give up on you,....your .......your..."terco".....well I said it. Its true...
Most people of religious faith are against "some gay right issues" that they feel are not based on discrimination... We can all yell discrimination in our life reagarding certian habits, choices...like:
being female.
being fat, ugly
being hispanic
being religious
being liberal
being conservative
being promiscious
being white
being black
being a jerk
being morman
being mexican
being black
being indian
being beautiful
being intelligent as opposed to being stupid
being single
being married
being in a "live in not married relationship"
being lazy
being un-academic
See...these who are listed above can claim discrimination too. Get my point.
"you see what i mean...you never conceed to any view opposed to yours..."like thats true...you make a good point, I can see that too...maybe" Like there could never possibly be any middle ground." - When Jestah makes a good point, that point will be recognized as such. And no, there is no middle ground: either you do discriminate, or you don't.
"No explaination is good enough for your train of thought on some issues. Its either your way or the highway...in ideoogy. Becaues its correct for you doesn't mean its correct for the rest of the world. Thats why posters give up on you,....your .......your..."terco".....well I said it. Its true..." - When someone thinks of a logical, well-thought out reason to discriminate against homosexuals, one based solely in valid, proven fact, and not in opinion, not in unproven mythologies such as religion, not in hyperbole or ad hominem -- cold, hard facts, and absolutely nothing more... That's the kind of explanation that is needed. We -- the guys that don't hate gays -- have logical reasons and comparisons showing why we shouldn't hate gays. You -- the guys that do -- don't.
"Most people of religious faith are against "some gay right issues" that they feel are not based on discrimination..." - Motive is irrelevant -- it's still discrimination. "Hey, I know, let's treat people unfairly just because they have an uncontrollable psychological abnormality that is being denounced by some ancient, unproven, pre-B.C.E. book written by naive cavemen who were so intellectually primitive that they thought the sun went around the Earth! What a great idea!" Please explain to me how that's not discrimination.
It doesn't change the fact that you have not made any relevant points here...you want people to "concede" to your "well thought out" views...but you have not presented any well thought out views here, Jade, and you -- for someone pointing their finger at so many others -- never pay the slightest bit of attention to the points that others make.
You have not once, that I recall, actually stated a reason that gays should be denied the basic civil rights as anyone else.
For that matter, neither has anyone else in this thread...
From: The Happy Hunting Grounds... Insane since: Mar 2001
posted 06-09-2009 09:12
quote:You have not once, that I recall, actually stated a reason that gays should be denied the basic civil rights as anyone else.
For that matter, neither has anyone else in this thread...
The actual crux of the matter.
Instead, lots of smoke and mirrors, sidestepping, sidetracking, and pointing the finger in any other direction than the one that is being discussed.
WebShaman | The keenest sorrow (and greatest truth) is to recognize ourselves as the sole cause of all our adversities.
- Sophocles
quote:I've been called worse by better people per DL
You see how you discriminate against me because I don't agree with your view???
Why are there better people out there as opposed to me...? Answer this question.
What is wrong with me that I am not a better person? Answer this question.
It seems you have judged me as an individual.
Besides..you side step, tap dance and salsa around my quesitons to you in past post...Your no different.
I still fail to see a convincing argument for the recent shift in gays rights.
Explain this:
Just today....I read NY is going to reverse its same sex marriage anticipated ruling because of a shift in a senate seat to totally banning same sex marriage in the state. The NY public opinon poll is tied 46-46% . The Supreme court ruling "don't ask ...don't tell " stood firm yesterday. This is a disappointment to the current Obama administration which said it was going to try to reverse the ruling.
From: The Happy Hunting Grounds... Insane since: Mar 2001
posted 06-09-2009 17:23
Though I cannot personally speak for DL, I do not think that he discriminates against you, Jade, because you "do not agree" with his view (whatever that might be).
I personally don't think he discriminates against you at all.
Instead, I rather suspect that he disagrees with what you post, because it is almost never backed up by anything remotely resembling evidence, nor are most of your posts rational. It is where I mostly disagree with what you post, because it rarely makes any sense at all, and doesn't seem to be founded on any rational basis.
You seem to believe (at least, you give that impression and post to such) that belief in and of itself is enough evidence to support a position. And although I believe that you really do think that this is a "truth" and therefore evidence in and of itself, it is not.
It is not how one goes about supporting a particular view or position.
It is true for you, soley for you. That is why it is referred to as belief - because one believes in it. Note that this does not just apply to religion here, or Faith (though faith in something is very similar).
The REASON(S) that someone believes in something is what is used to determine the validity of it to others (not meaning that it necessarily needs to be, but if one wishes others to understand the reason(s) behind the belief, then it is important to include and state them).
Now, let us consider some who have views (or perhaps positions is a better choice) that are closer to your own - Bugs and Master Suho. I think you will find that most of us here, although we may disagree with certain parts of their views, certainly do not "discriminate" or somesuch because we do not agree with their views of positions (and to be honest, I haven't seen much discrimination here in the Asylum at all).
So why do you think that is?
If you examine how both Bugs and Master Suho support their views and positions, then it should become clear to you.
As for your "assertions" that DL has avoided your questions - to a certain extent, I believe that is correct. I know that I tend to do this now, as well. It is because past experiences have taught us the futility in trying to educate you with responses to your questions.
Ram your head enough times against the wall, and one learns not to do it anymore.
WebShaman | The keenest sorrow (and greatest truth) is to recognize ourselves as the sole cause of all our adversities.
- Sophocles
quote:Now, let us consider some who have views (or perhaps positions is a better choice) that are closer to your own - Bugs and Master Suho. I think you will find that most of us here, although we may disagree with certain parts of their views, certainly do not "discriminate" or somesuch because we do not agree with their views of positions (and to be honest, I haven't seen much discrimination here in the Asylum at all
haha,,,this is totally untrue...your post to me...always show discrimination just for the mere fact that I am against same sex marriage and aboriton...Not by u, but I have been called stupid, ignorant, bastard, the F word...bitch, racist, bigot, uneducated, not intelligent...so stop trying bury your head in the sand. Its not like u.
Gays rights is not about liberty and the pursuit of happiness....There a thousand other issues that can be considered "this will make me happy" and are taboo. Their rights are not being violated. They have rights like all heteros do. Regarding insurance..every one should have insurance. Its should be low and affordable..
Its a scandal and shame for us in our country to deny medical benefits for all, not just homos. Regarding marriage of spouses.. the homos can leave their estate to one another without changing marriage laws. Just leave it in their will.
quote:Ram your head enough times against the wall, and one learns not to do it anymore.
same can be said for u from me.
quote:I am commenting on the very real and obvious parallel between the discrimination against people based on their ethnicity, and the discrimintaion against people based on their sexual orientation
Black persons I have talked to here at work take offense when you compare slavery to discrimination of gays. They do not see it the same way. Color of skin that you are born with as opposed to how you choose to have sex is so uncomparable to them They get upset about it. This is probably why many California blacks voted to ban same sex marriage in their state in Proposition 8. They see the movement as trying to lump themselves or align with the black cause just to make it more effective in promoting their lifestyle. And it backfired on them.
quote:The point to our system of government is precisely the fact that those elected do NOT simply follow popular opinion.
Our government, in principle if not in practice, is there to protect the rights of the people, including - quite particularly - those who might not have the majority opinion.
True.. that is why...the US Supreme court let stand the "don't ask, don't tell" policy in the military because it is for the good of the country and the military. They want the gays to live a secret life in the military.
Do you agree with them DL Webshaman? If not, state why in facts to support your reasoning against the US Supreme Court?
quote:It appears that neither you nor your black colleagues have grasped the fact that one does not choose to be gay.
Please prove this in scientific facts as opposed to your opinion poi. When a human male/female begin puberty tell me when the first signs appear of their homosexual tendencies for the same gender. Maybe you can enlighten the scientist.
There is no research to indicate proof.
Saying one is born gay cannot be proven anywhere.
Choosing to live a gay lifestyle or choosing to be bisexual can be choices. Sexual fullfillment can be achieved no matter what gender and this is where the choice lies.
quote:LMAO!
That's rich, Jade.
You call me names...and when I throw a quip back in reply, I am persecuting you...
Good stuff...thanks for the laugh, I needed it today
I did not call you names...I just say you seemed stubborn in views.
still waiting for each of my questions to be answered..
Why do you think the supreme court still wants gays to stay in the closet in the military? How are they justified in making this correct decsion since you are passionate about the gay causes?
still waiting for each of my questions to be answered..
If you would ask questions that weren't completely nonsensical, I might be able to Jade.
I won't waste my time on questions that have been answered over and over and over, or ones that are obvious trolling.
The issue of genetics and homosexuality is pretty well explored scientifically at this point, and there is a lot of evidence to support homosexuality having a genetic basis. There is a lot more to being a homosexual than what you do with your sexual organs, you know...
There is plenty of information to be found online with just the smallest bit of effort. I am certainly not going to attempt to explain it all, and I am not going to respond to childish demands that I offer some sort of absolute indisputable proof to refute your completely uninformed opinions, Jade.
You want me to "prove" that gays deserve equal rights, when you cannot offer any reason that they should not...
I don't think it needs to be proven that a human being deserves to be treated as such.
quote: jade said:
Black persons I have talked to here at work take offense when you compare slavery to discrimination of gays. They do not see it the same way
I did not, in any way, compare slavery to discrimination against homosexuals.
I very clearly pointed out, in and preceding the text of mine that you quoted, that nobody was drawing a correlation between slavery and discrimination as it exists today.
This is another prime example of why I view you as little more than a troll.
You know Jestah, in all the years that I have had contact with you on these boards, it is the first time I can recall that you refer to me being "dishonest".
I can't help it. I grew up a long time ago, tired of the oral masturbation found so often on this message board, and can't stand the "'SO WHAT YOUR SAYING IS ...' followed by a completely inane statement that has nothing to do with what I said" style of responding to a post that you used three times in two posts. Can you honestly tell me that it isn't a dishonest way to converse with someone or fail to see why it would be so annoying to respond to?
Unfortunately it got better from there.
Take for example my admission that I don't see the discrimination while seeking an explanation. I have you condescendingly telling me to fire up my browser and get an edjamakation while DL tells me I'm a troll that hasn't made a point. Clearly we're at an impasse. I don't see rights being violated and you two are far too superior to bother with a simpleton like me.
That shtick got old a long time ago but unfortunately this stroll down memory lane will have gained us nothing more than a new quip whenever DL next logs in.
I'm on pins and needles waiting to see what insult he thinks up next.
The problem, though, is that we are treating them unfairly for an abnormality that is completely beyond their control. I wonder, do you approve of the unfair treatment that blacks and women received for several centuries? They were treated like shit because they had an abnormality that was completely beyond their control.
I just don't see the parallels between gays and blacks or women. The latter two were denied actual rights by the United States and I just don't see our government doing the same to gays.
Please prove this in scientific facts as opposed to your opinion poi. When a human male/female begin puberty tell me when the first signs appear of their homosexual tendencies for the same gender. Maybe you can enlighten the scientist.There is no research to indicate proof. Saying one is born gay cannot be proven anywhere. Choosing to live a gay lifestyle or choosing to be bisexual can be choices. Sexual fullfillment can be achieved no matter what gender and this is where the choice lies.(Edited by jade on 06-09-2009 20:05)
Do you choose to be straight? Please very descriptively describe the day when you just got up and said, "Ya know what? I think I'll choose to enjoy screwing people of the opposite gender."
Oh, wait, there wasn't a day where you said anything to that effect, because you don't choose who you fall in love with!
As for biological and logical proof, love has been proven to be the result of one person detecting compatible genes in another person. For example, people whose immunities to diseases differ from our own tend to smell nice -- we're smelling their immunities. When you and a person of the opposite gender have differing genes that, when combined, would produce genetically superior offspring, there is a very high chance that you and that person will fall in love. Love is a biological and psychological process controlled almost entirely by already-identified parts of the mind.
Considering that biological and psychological processes can go wrong (see also: genetic mutations, psychological disorders, Asperger's, autism, schizophrenia, psychosis, delusions, hallucinations, blindness, deafness, colorblindness, phobias, antisocial personality disorder, ADD, ADHD, amnesia, dissociative identity disorder, hypochondriasis, ...), and considering that love is a biological and psychological process, it is entirely possible that a "glitch", completely beyond the control of the affected person(s), can cause someone to fall in love with a person of the same gender -- homosexuality. Yes, it's an abnormality, but it's one that is completely beyond the control of the person affected, and it doesn't inherently cause harm to others, so it's not immoral and should thus receive the same treatment under the law as heterosexuality.
When you demonstrate logic that conclusively explains how and why sexuality is a choice -- not morally, not ethically, but psychologically and/or biologically -- then your argument will be valid. Until you demonstrate such rationality, your arguments are meaningless.
From: The Happy Hunting Grounds... Insane since: Mar 2001
posted 06-10-2009 10:48
DavidJCobb, you will not reach Jade.
She has already been presented with all the Biological Facts and Evidence in support of Homosexuality in Nature.
She has already been presented with all the rebuttals to points she has raised against Gay Rights (it was actually discussed under topics discussing Gay Marriage).
Jade rejects all this on Religious grounds. She believes that Homosexuality is a Sin against God.
Since this is based on Belief, nothing you say or trott out before her eyes will convince her to change her stance or position. We know this, because we have already tried it, many, many, many times before.
WebShaman | The keenest sorrow (and greatest truth) is to recognize ourselves as the sole cause of all our adversities.
- Sophocles
They have already been presented with all the Biological Facts and Evidence against Homosexuality in Nature.
They have already been presented with all the rebuttals to points they have raised for Gay Rights (it was actually discussed under topics discussing Gay Marriage).
Webshaman & DL reject all this on Athiest grounds. They believe that Homosexuality is a gift from Life.
Since this is based on BELIEF, with no scientific evidence nothing you say or trott out before their eyes will convince them to change their stance or position. We know this, because its been tried it, many, many, many times before.
DL...why has the US supreme court in their supreme intelligence regarding law want to keep gays in the closet in the military ....
3rd request. Answer this too Webshaman. Why is this Supreme court ruling good for our US of A.
Still no proven evidence facts people are born gay...just skirting around the issue so far...not impressed..No valid points have been made other than " feelings "...I FELT gay when I was growing up.... well... FELT religious growing up....what is the difference.
quote:Oh, wait, there wasn't a day where you said anything to that effect, because you don't choose who you fall in love with!
I beg to differ....love is a choice.....you choose love or you don't...you can allow youself not to love someone.
And there is a thin line between what you see as lust/love..
From: The Happy Hunting Grounds... Insane since: Mar 2001
posted 06-10-2009 16:48
quote:They have already been presented with all the Biological Facts and Evidence against Homosexuality in Nature.
Errr...no?
You never presented any - in fact, it is the other way around. You were presented with biological examples of natural homosexual cases (that have been peer reviewed) and since it occurs in nature, it is natural.
quote:They have already been presented with all the rebuttals to points they have raised for Gay Rights (it was actually discussed under topics discussing Gay Marriage).
Errr...no?
In fact, such never was presented by you (nor anyone). Bugs raised some points, but even he had problems supporting them.
quote:Webshaman & DL reject all this on Athiest grounds. They believe that Homosexuality is a gift from Life.
I don't reject things on Athiest grounds. Where ever did you get that idea? I base my acceptance or rejection of something based soley on the factual evidence (or lack thereof) and validity of a thing. I do not believe that Homosecuality is a gift from Life. That is just plain ridiculous!
I believe that it is a natural process that has been observed and documented in Nature (and you were presented with such evidence, and you can easily research it with Google). If you wish, I will provide you with links.
quote:Since this is based on BELIEF, with no scientific evidence nothing you say or trott out before their eyes will convince them to change their stance or position. We know this, because its been tried it, many, many, many times before.
Quite the contrary here.
quote:DL...why has the US supreme court in their supreme intelligence regarding law want to keep gays in the closet in the military ....
3rd request. Answer this too Webshaman. Why is this Supreme court ruling good for our US of A.
First of all, the US Supreme Court consists of people - just like you and me. They are not inhuman. So to suggest that they have "supreme intelligence" is misguided.
In regards to the Military, I quite frankly believe (note that I do not know the real reasons each Judge had for voting as they did on the issue - anyone got a link?) that they did it to actually protect Homosexuals from Hetrosexuals.
If one is on a battlefield (something, Jade, that I rather suspect you have no experience of), I woudn't want someone that hates me for what I am to have a gun in their hands and every opportunity to use it on me.
We know that women in the Military are in danger of getting raped, especially in combat - Iraq has proved this very well. I really shudder to think of what would happen if Homosexuals were known to be in certain units, and had "outed" themselves.
All social transitions take time - the Military adopted a "don't tell and we will not ask" policy due to the lawsuits if you recall. I consider that a first step towards tolerance.
I suspect that there will be more forthcoming.
quote:I beg to differ....love is a choice.....you choose love or you don't...you can allow youself not to love someone.
And there is a thin line between what you see as lust/love..
I am not entirely sure about that - one can control oneself (re: resist the urge to do something) yes. But you cannot stop the urge at all. This is something totally different.
Yes, you can control yourself to a point that you do not follow up on your feelings. But that you will have these feelings, whether or not you want to have them, is something else entirely.
Are you saying that you can control yourself to a point that you can decide what you feel? In other words, you can make yourself feel attraction to the opposite sex, or even to animals? That you can make yourself hate your newborn baby, merely with mental will?
If that is true, then you must be the happiest person on Earth, for you can make yourself feel indefinitely happy at all times. You do not ever suffer from sadness, pain, loneliness, loss, or suffer at all.
Addendum :
I took the liberty of digging up some quick links for you, Jade.
D'Augelli, A. R., Grossman, A. H., & Starks, M. T., "Childhood Gender Atypicality, Victimization, and PTSD Among Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Youth," Journal of Interpersonal Violence
Myers, D. G., Excerpt from Psychology, 8th edition. (New York: Worth Publishers, 2007), http://www.davidmyers.org
Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality, American Psychological Association, online at http://helping.apa.org
Myers, D. G., Excerpt from Psychology, 8th edition. (New York: Worth Publishers, 2007), http://www.davidmyers.org
Roselli C.E., Larkin K., Schrunk J.M., Stormshak F., "Sexual partner preference, hypothalamic morphology and aromatase in rams," Physiology and Behavior, 2004, Nov 15;83(2):233-45.
WebShaman | The keenest sorrow (and greatest truth) is to recognize ourselves as the sole cause of all our adversities.
- Sophocles
quote:Try as I might, I find only one thing to quibble over in your post, and that?s regarding pair bonding in birds. Monogamous pair bonding in birds is, I gather, most often temporary and not lifelong. It?s my understanding that few bird species really mate for life. Most of the bird data we have is for marine birds like ducks, and marine birds do indeed tend to mate for life. But many more birds are more transitory, making their mating habits hard to know; often birds will rejoin a mate in a given location, but mate frequently with other birds elsewhere, a difficult thing to track. Indeed, some birds have never been observed mating. (My hubby is a birder, very well-versed in all things bird, and I get much of my bird info from him.) I?ll bet you observed many bird couples at home on the farm, but how would you know who they mated with in the next county, or over the winter? Those rascals can be as promiscuous as, well, humans.
Here?s my own assessment of the overall issue. As you mention, there?s ample data to prove that homosexual behaviors are extremely common throughout the natural world, and in human societies recur in expectable proportions (in the range of 4-12% according to my recollection of studies published over the last half-century) in generation after generation irrespective of culture, and that this has been going on for as long as we know. Various homosexual behaviors in various nonhuman species range from no recorded observation all to very nearly ubiquitous appearance - I think 80% of one bird species were observed to engage in homosexual activity, and of course bonobos will have sex with anyone and anything.
The subject needs much more study before anyone can begin to assert that homosexuality has or hasn?t some cause or purpose, but I believe that based on empirical evidence we can say 1) it?s likely that homosexuality has a genetic component, 2) all sexuality is likely to be impacted by many factors (including but certainly not limited to pheromones), 3) homosexuality is prima facie of direct or indirect evolutionary value to the species that exhibit it, and 4) homosexual behavior is quite natural in every respect (unless of course one defines "natural" as "not homosexual").
Since homosexual behavior has been documented in hundreds of species, from insects and lizards to birds and primates, it is self-evidently not "indicative of existing physiological abnormalities, chemical imbalances", and since it occurs in generation after generation in consistent proportions it must either confer some direct benefit to species or be an integral byproduct of some other direct benefit.
The definitive text is "Biological Exuberance: Animal homosexuality and natural diversity" by Bruce Bagemihl, PhD, St. Martin?s Press, NY, 1999, 752 pp. The book is an exhaustive meta-analysis of published, peer-reviewed journals and observations by professionals throughout the life sciences. It utterly explodes many persistent myths and stereotypes, and has been extensively reviewed without (to my knowledge) any significant dispute of the book?s findings or its underlying data. The book?s conclusion is very much as you say, that homosexual behavior being widely present throughout nature is most appropriately viewed as one of a range of diverse behaviors naturally present in a biological universe teeming with vitality and abundance. The abundance of behaviors available to and engaged by species in their natural habitat is almost certainly itself a primary evolutionary tool, helping species cope with all manner of environmental change. A species that wants to survive is more likely to maximize its behavioral options, not limit them.
Anyone truly interested in the possible evolutionary value of sexual diversity should simply read the book, as it presents virtually all the data currently available to 1999. If your library doesn?t have a copy, you should insist that they get one. Readers will find ample evidence of all sorts of polysexual behaviors. To speak only of one aspect of animal sexuality, some animals never bond monogamously at all, and few bond for a lifetime (humans aren?t really one of them, although the culture of romantic love that purportedly dates from the courtly tradition of the late medieval and early Renaissance would have us believe we are), while most fall somewhere between these extremes. Far from ratifying any bonding configuration (such as the "nuclear family", the abundance of variability in nature strongly encourages us to believe not only that no single bonding configuration is superior to another but that any unnatural attempt to enforce a particular bonding strategy for theoretical, political or religious purposes (not that there?s any real difference between these three) could constrain and limit a species? "free market" abundance of behaviors to that species? detriment. One example of such a self-evidently detrimental constraint might be preventing same-sex couples from adopting children, particularly for hard-to-place children, when it is transparently obvious that such couples often do a much better parenting job than the state or, in many cases, heterosexual couples.
For some animals, homosexual pairs bond for life while heterosexual pairs do not. For some animals, homosexual pairs are quantitatively more successful at child-rearing, whether they copulate with the opposite gender and then return to the homosexual pair to rear the young or take in orphans or steal the young of others. The only generalization we can make is that few if any behavioral arrangements are truly anomalous. It would be helpful to study these matters more fully, but a certain element of American society generally opposes studies of human or even animal sexuality, presumably because the results may not conform to unexamined presuppositions.
Here are some excerpts from the book, which "offers a survey of the full range of homosexual activity found in the animal world, organized around five ,major behavioral categories: courtship, affection, sex, pair-bonding, and parenting." (p.12) They pretty much ratify what you wrote.
"The traditional view of the animal kingdom - what might call the Noah?s ark view - is that biology revolves around two sexes, male and female, with one of each to a pair. The range of genders actually found in the animal world, however, is considerably richer than this. Animals with females that become males, animals with no males at all, animals that are both male and female simultaneously, animals where males resemble females, animals where females court other females and males court other males - Noah?s ark was never quite like this! Homosexuality represents but one of a wide variety of alternative sexualities and genders. Many people are familiar with transvestism or transsexuality only in humans, yet similar phenomena are also found in the animal kingdom. Although this books focuses primarily on homosexuality, it is helpful to compare this with related phenomena that are often confused with homosexuality [discussion follows concerning hermaphroditic species, parthenogenetic species, mimicry of the opposite gender, transexuality and intersexuality (combining characteristics of both sexes)]. P.37
"A particular example of homosexual activity - whether animal or human - is in reality a unique amalgam or ?blend? of multiple factors, any one of which may be shared with other forms of homosexual activity without necessarily conferring identity between the overall patterns they represent. Comparisons of homosexuality in animals and humans that fail to recognize such complexities are simply misleading.
"It is helpful in this regard to think of homosexuality in terms of a number of independent axes, each of which is a continuum joining two ?opposite? ends of a particular category (as suggested by researchers Stephen Donaldson and Wayne Dynes, who developed a typology for human sexuality based on this framework). For example, one axis might represent the degree to which the homosexual interaction is gendered or role-based [examples given] ... Another axis would represent the age relationship of the partners involved (ranging from no age difference to a clearly age-differentiated interaction); another represents sexual orientation of participants (homosexual <-> bisexual <-> heterosexual); another consensuality (forced or nonconsensual <-> freely chosen or consensual); another genetic relationship of partners (incestuous <-> unrelated); social status or position of same-sex activity (socially sanctioned <-> socially condemned); and so on." P.45
"As primatologist G. Gray Eaton suggests, sexual versatility as both a biological and a cultural phenomenon in animals may be directly responsible for a species? success, in ways that challenge conventional views of evolution: ?The macaques? sexual behavior includes both hetero- and homosexual aspects as part of the "normal" pattern. Protocultural variations of some of these patterns have already been discussed but it is well to remember the extreme variation in behavior that characterizes individuals and groups of primates. This plasticity of behavior has apparently played a major role in the evolutionary success of primates by allowing them to adapt to a variety of social and environmental conditions.... The variability and plasticity of the behavior ... suggests an optimistic or "maximal view of human potentialities and limitations" ... rather than a pessimistic or minimal view of man as a biological machine functioning on the basis of instinct. This minimal view based on the fang-and-claw school of Darwinism finds little support in the evidence of protocultural evolution in nonhuman primates.?" [In the footnote, Baghemil notes that Vasey?s Homosexual Behavior in Primates suggests that "homosexuality may not be adaptive itself, but may represent a neutral behavioral ?byproduct? of some other trait that is adaptive, such as behavioral plasticity."] P.251
"Traditionally, scarcity and functionality have been considered the primary agents of biological change. The essence of Biological Exuberance is that natural systems are driven as much by abundance and excess as they are by limitation and practicality. Seen in this light, homosexuality and nonreproductive heterosexuality are "expected" occurrences - they are one manifestation of an overall "extravagance? of biological systems that has many other expressions." P.215
I think we can safely say that based on both factual and observed natural evidence (that stands up under peer review), Homosexuality occurs in Nature.
It is therefore natural.
WebShaman | The keenest sorrow (and greatest truth) is to recognize ourselves as the sole cause of all our adversities.
- Sophocles
Look,, found this regarding human choices in human nature where there is a will to do or not do.
What sets up apart from animals is our choice. Would you do the same thing if there was no opposite sex for you for the next up to 99 years or less in prison life? Or would you remain celibate till death?
In prisons, men who are deprived of women, often turn to each other to satisfy their needs. Men in captivity or stranded alone together in general tend to do so. It is the common need of feeling touch and connection to another person aside from the sexual release. Women too, find comfort and love in each other?s bodies if there are no alternatives in captivity. The studies then show that these same people revert to their basic sexuality after the event ends. It is rare psychologically for them to continue with homosexual activities after the fact.
Also this on the internet too.. so its who you look for to support your opposing view:
Some have exaggerated or misrepresented studies in attempt to prove that homosexuality is genetic. Others insist that homosexuality is developed after birth as a response to one?s environment. The truth is that we have no conclusive replicable research to prove either conclusion. However, most researchers have come to the conclusion that sexual orientation is likely determined by a complex interaction between a person?s genetic make-up and their environment.
Even the American Psychological Association asserts that:
There are numerous theories about the origins of a person's sexual orientation; most scientists today agree that sexual orientation is most likely the result of a complex interaction of environmental, cognitive and biological factors. In most people, sexual orientation is shaped at an early age.17 (emphasis added).
And the American Psychiatric Association wrote:
Currently there is a renewed interest in searching for biological etiologies for homosexuality. However, to date there are no replicated scientific studies supporting any specific biological etiology for homosexuality.
quote:You know, I do my best to ignore some threads... then I see Jade has posted, and I think "what the hell, I need a laugh"...
good for you....you relieved some stress today.. thanks to me. thanks for being interested in what I have to post.
quote:Are you saying that you can control yourself to a point that you can decide what you feel? In other words, you can make yourself feel attraction to the opposite sex, or even to animals? That you can make yourself hate your newborn baby, merely with mental will?
If that is true, then you must be the happiest person on Earth, for you can make yourself feel indefinitely happy at all times. You do not ever suffer from sadness, pain, loneliness, loss, or suffer at all.
this is jibberish from u...what are u trying to relate????
Yes.. I can control attraction to opposite sex if I am not looking for it..If I am on the prowl I will certainly find it. We are talking about romantic love her between the sexes...You getting off track regarding animals and babies...those are different kinds of love..maternal love and love of animals cannot be compared to romantic love. I am human and suffer from many ills, emotions just like everyone else but i can choose to be happy and I am.
I see two arguments here. One was that homosexuality occurs in nature. The other, presented as a counter argument, was that there's no conclusive consensus on causes of (or reasons for) homosexuality. I find them to be related, not mutually exclusive, arguments.
This is my "Feelings" regarding homosexual lifestyle......
In view of the Christian teachings on the subject of homosexuality, the profession is that this lifestyle if chosen in practice can never be of a holy nature if that is what the individual is seeking. Many in the homosexual community yearn to have their homosexual nature/desire validated by a religious umbrella as if to state, God made me this way so I must be ok. Or God does not create anything bad so I must be normal.
And many homosexuals do believe in God. They are not Godless. I would pray and hope those who have homosexual tendencies find the peace they yearn for in life. A homosexual lifestyle lived is a hard road to take. We all must make choices in life on how we want to live according to the principles we were taught or embraced. Christians, believe God loves all those who consider themselves homosexual just as much as he loves all those who call themselves heterosexual.
Personally, if asked, I would never tell one that to practice homosexuality is good and do whatever makes you happy. Christianity for us is to love everyone, regardless of the act or lifestyle they choose we consider immoral. Our message in spreading the Good News of Salvation is that Christ is coming to each of us ?no matter how wretched a person becomes in through their actions. The road to salvation is hard and the path is narrow if we can make it we will be rewarded for our courage to be strong.
In many tenants of faith of different denominations, the human anatomy is looked upon as a beautiful piece of creation in its make up, intelligence and in its gifted senses. But for us the most sacred part of a human person is what it contains in its spiritual nature. A human person reflects what it is on the inside in how he/she relates. The heterosexual and homosexual who uses their body for sexual gratification reflects what state their soul is. For believers, to engage in a union that bears no fruit never benefits society as a whole race of people. It only serves the self-gratification of the individual who gives into the lustful they inherit. What sets us apart from the animal is our ability to reason in what draws us to act morally and responsibility as a community and to each other. Each species of humankind is a compliment to one another. The nicest way to relate this is the plumbing that was installed in each speices to create new life in the multitudes. It fits.
For us the homosexual lifestyle is one that is contrary to the nature of what God intended the human body created for. This has been said over and over again. I know,.. but its one we never lose faith in. To abuse the body and manipulate it for a purpose other than what it was designed for is defiling it according to many religious beliefs. Many people of faith will never lose sight of their convictions no matter how many homosexuals argue or debate their cause to live openly as comparable to heterosexuals do in society. We don?t become defeatist in our desire to have our many brothers and sisters in the homosexual community come to know God in his holiness. Since our only goal is to be holy and pleasing in all our actions to God, we are on a mission to make this a holier place. Many would see this as a prejudice or intolerance, bigotry or hatred. Call it what you will, but that is not what we call it. We call it love for of fellow man in Christ.
From: The Happy Hunting Grounds... Insane since: Mar 2001
posted 06-10-2009 23:38
Jade, your posts demonstrate exactly your denial of the facts, that which DL and I have pointed out and was mentioned in this thread (among others), which you say you do not engage in.
I posted them, you just denied them. Did you even read the links and material I posted?
I offer proof, you do not.
Please post your links, and please show me where your evidence holds up under peer review. I have done this.
The plain fact of the matter is, regardless of what you may consider to be "choice", that homosexuality occurs in Nature.
Now let us address this :
quote:Look,, found this regarding human choices in human nature where there is a will to do or not do.
What sets up apart from animals is our choice. Would you do the same thing if there was no opposite sex for you for the next up to 99 years or less in prison life? Or would you remain celibate till death?
In prisons, men who are deprived of women, often turn to each other to satisfy their needs. Men in captivity or stranded alone together in general tend to do so. It is the common need of feeling touch and connection to another person aside from the sexual release. Women too, find comfort and love in each other?s bodies if there are no alternatives in captivity. The studies then show that these same people revert to their basic sexuality after the event ends. It is rare psychologically for them to continue with homosexual activities after the fact.
This is actually pretty funny, because what you have posted is actually examples of heterosexuals engaging in homosexual activities when they are denied the opportunity to satisfy their heterosexual urges with someone of the opposite sex!
You did read the part that such revert back to their basic sexuality after the event ends (which is denial of a normal way to satisfy their sexual urges without another choice!)
In other words, one CANNOT make someone change their sexuality permanently! It can be suppressed, and it can be temporarily altered if the stress of the environment is great enough, but when presented with an environment where that is not so, it immediately reverts back to "normal".
And if you are asking me this question, I have no idea what I would be capable of doing in such an environment - as I have never been subjected to it.
Regardless or not if someone wishes to refuse their urges, hold them under control, humans have them. Homosexuals have urges and respond to the same sex in the EXACT same way that heterosexuals respond to the opposite sex.
Or are you denying this as well?
As to your assumption that I have not investigated the issue thoroughly (and I have, I have researched the many sides to the issue - being that there are more than two, the one that is best factually and scientifically supported is that homosexuality is natural) is groundless, because it is incorrect as well.
I find it interesting that you say that you can control attraction if you do not wish to be attracted. I would bet that if you were tested (there are ways that one can test if you are attracted or not, by monitoring that part of the brain that responds when attracted, and by measuring pulserate, and other things) that you indeed have a physiological response (because otherwise, you would not be human).
There was recently testing done on this - some surprising results came out of it, mostly surrounding women. Most women would report that they were not aroused or attracted, when both the areas of the brain that are responsible for attraction and arousal were active AND physiological reactions were measured!
This study seems to indicate that women's bodies and the physiological reaction to arousal and attraction is not directly coupled to the conscious thought processes in women as it is in most men. But make no mistake - all the women in the study did show arousal and attraction physiologically.
I think what you mean here is that you control your urge to attraction - which is different than not having any at all (on the other hand, perhaps you are not consciously aware that you are attracted and/or aroused).
What I want to know is, why should homosexuals not love one another and not have sex (as long as they are adults and consenting) to express their love? Why shouldn't they be allowed to marry one another in a bond of love?
Please base your answers to these questions factually, with evidence supporting your postion that has withstood peer review. Note that this rules the Bible out.
As for this little snippet
quote:For us the homosexual lifestyle is one that is contrary to the nature of what God intended the human body created for.
I am interested where you are getting this information of what "god" intended. I truly hope you have something better and more substantial as the Bible here.
If it is the Bible, please name the passages. Note that I will be using the texts and translations for the ancient Greek and Hebrew versions to refute any and all the passages that you might site from your bible, should that be your source.
I hope you have boned up on your ancient Greek and Hebrew.
I have.
WebShaman | The keenest sorrow (and greatest truth) is to recognize ourselves as the sole cause of all our adversities.
- Sophocles
DavidJCobb, you will not reach Jade. She has already been presented with all the Biological Facts and Evidence in support of Homosexuality in Nature. [...]
I know, but I just love participating in the intellectual pwnage of people who consistently fail to use logic and reason!
-----
quote: jade said:
This is my "Feelings" regarding homosexual lifestyle......In view of the Christian teachings on the subject of homosexuality, the profession is that this lifestyle if chosen in practice can never be of a holy nature if that is what the individual is seeking. Many in the homosexual community yearn to have their homosexual nature/desire validated by a religious umbrella as if to state, God made me this way so I must be ok. Or God does not create anything bad so I must be normal. And many homosexuals do believe in God. They are not Godless. I would pray and hope those who have homosexual tendencies find the peace they yearn for in life. A homosexual lifestyle lived is a hard road to take.
I submit to you several counterpoints that you will most likely fail to understand or even consider.
Your profession is irrelevant if it contradicts the very potent combination of biological fact and simple logic -- and multiple members in this topic have very clearly demonstrated that it does.
Actually, I would say that most gays don't give a flying crap about religious validation as much as they do societal violation. They're not yelling at God, they're not asking the Pope for rights, they're asking the people, the government, the media, for equality -- equality that they deserve. Your idea of what's right, your idea of what's moral, the only way that's relevant to the gay rights movement is that said "morality" only leads to hatred, bigotry, ignorance, and numerous other fallacies that have only made the world worse. Obviously, some gays do believe in God, but considering that there are multiple interpretations and ways of practicing Christianity -- and that more and more churches are starting to open their doors to homosexuals -- your morals, hell, the morals of your entire church, are only relevant to them in regards to the discrimination that you perpetrate.
quote: jade said:
We all must make choices in life on how we want to live according to the principles we were taught or embraced. Christians, believe God loves all those who consider themselves homosexual just as much as he loves all those who call themselves heterosexual. Personally, if asked, I would never tell one that to practice homosexuality is good and do whatever makes you happy. Christianity for us is to love everyone, regardless of the act or lifestyle they choose we consider immoral. Our message in spreading the Good News of Salvation is that Christ is coming to each of us ?no matter how wretched a person becomes in through their actions.
So it's not that God hates gays... It's just that he finds them disgusting, revolting, morally reprehensible, and not deserving of equal treatment or rights? Please tell me that that is not your idea of a fair and just God. Hell, if there is a God, and he really gives a damn about something as minor as a person's sexual orientation, then humanity would probably be better off in Hell.
quote: jade said:
The road to salvation is hard and the path is narrow if we can make it we will be rewarded for our courage to be strong.
In many tenants of faith of different denominations, the human anatomy is looked upon as a beautiful piece of creation in its make up, intelligence and in its gifted senses. But for us the most sacred part of a human person is what it contains in its spiritual nature. A human person reflects what it is on the inside in how he/she relates. The heterosexual and homosexual who uses their body for sexual gratification reflects what state their soul is. For believers, to engage in a union that bears no fruit never benefits society as a whole race of people. It only serves the self-gratification of the individual who gives into the lustful they inherit.
So I suppose people who are infertile are also worthless? And people that have sex for non-reproductive purposes are committing immoral acts? Screw the individual, society's all that matters!
quote: jade said:
What sets us apart from the animal is our ability to reason in what draws us to act morally and responsibility as a community and to each other. Each species of humankind is a compliment to one another. The nicest way to relate this is the plumbing that was installed in each speices to create new life in the multitudes. It fits.
There are almost certainly numerous homosexual people who reason far better than you are now, and are likely far more responsible than you as well. By the way, there's only one species of humans -- Homo sapiens -- because we actually killed off other species like the Neanderthals.
Also, how does the ability to use logic, use reason, possess intelligence... How does any of that relate to the filling of orifices for the purposes of reproduction? Or are there people whose intellects are concentrated in their genitalia? If such people exist, we should probably refer them to the government for immediate study, as a second brain would be a very useful augmentation to the first, even if the second were to be placed within the ballsack.
quote: jade said:
For us the homosexual lifestyle is one that is contrary to the nature of what God intended the human body created for. This has been said over and over again. I know,.. but its one we never lose faith in. To abuse the body and manipulate it for a purpose other than what it was designed for is defiling it according to many religious beliefs. Many people of faith will never lose sight of their convictions no matter how many homosexuals argue or debate their cause to live openly as comparable to heterosexuals do in society. We don?t become defeatist in our desire to have our many brothers and sisters in the homosexual community come to know God in his holiness. Since our only goal is to be holy and pleasing in all our actions to God, we are on a mission to make this a holier place. Many would see this as a prejudice or intolerance, bigotry or hatred. Call it what you will, but that is not what we call it. We call it love for of fellow man in Christ.
So let me get this straight...
The only reason we exist is so that we can reproduce. All those who fail to reproduce, be it due to homosexuality or infertility or some other reason, are useless deadbeats who contribute nothing to society and thus do not deserve equality or fair treatment.
Faith is a perfectly good justification for blind, stubborn ignorance to facts that can be proven with little more than basic biology and logic. "Screw your fossil evidence and your psychological tests, we have an ancient book written by cavemen who thought the Sun went around the Earth!"
Prejudice, bigotry, and discrimination are not hateful if they're masked under a facade of good intentions.
A dude practicing "love for his fellow man" isn't gay. ROFL.
I think I'm done, unless I get some more comedy fodder.
From: The Happy Hunting Grounds... Insane since: Mar 2001
posted 06-11-2009 15:38
I did more research into this
quote:DL...why has the US supreme court in their supreme intelligence regarding law want to keep gays in the closet in the military ....
3rd request. Answer this too Webshaman. Why is this Supreme court ruling good for our US of A.
It turns out that the issues are quite complex, at the moment, with multiple cases all intertwined with one another.
url=http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124268952606832391.html]Obama Avoids Test on Gays in Military [/url]
Apparently, Jade, you do not understand quite what is happening and has happened (but that should not be all that surprising).
quote:In the appeals court case last year, the Bush administration argued that Air Force Maj. Margaret Witt, who was discharged after authorities discovered she had a relationship with a woman, had no grounds to challenge her expulsion in light of congressional findings that gays and lesbians in uniform "create an unacceptable risk" to military morale and "unit cohesion."
But the court ordered the government to show why military discipline would be imperiled by the specific presence of Maj. Witt.
President Obama faced an early March deadline to file an appeal to the Supreme Court. Obama aides twice filed requests asking for a one-month extension, which the court granted. The administration let the most recent deadline pass without seeking another extension.
A Justice Department spokeswoman said the government would defend the law at the trial over Maj. Witt's dismissal. The decision not to appeal to the Supreme Court "is a procedural decision made because the case is still working its way through the regular judicial process," she said.
Now, if you read down a bit you will find :
quote:Other priority issues for gay advocates loom as well. Mr. Obama will soon nominate a new Supreme Court justice, who will likely be forced to answer questions by the Senate about his or her view of various gay-rights issues that may arise -- particularly the constitutionality of bans on gay marriage, which has advanced in many states in recent months. The administration also must decide whether to allow gay and lesbian partners of workers at the federal court to qualify for health-care benefits.
It is always wise to delay things until one has a stronger hand to deal with
quote:The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had rejected similar suits in the 1990s. In its May 2008 ruling, the appeals court said the Supreme Court changed the legal landscape in 2003, when, in striking down a Texas sodomy law, it found that homosexuals had a constitutional right "to engage in their conduct without the intervention of the government."
Citing that case, the Ninth Circuit held that the government would have to do more than show that the "don't ask, don't tell" law furthered an important interest. Rather, at trial it must show how expelling Maj. Witt "significantly furthers the governments' interest and whether less intrusive means would" have worked just as well.
"Only then can DADT be measured against the appropriate constitutional standard," Judge Ronald Gould wrote for the court.
The ruling suggested the judges were skeptical that Maj. Witt, a nurse, posed a threat to military discipline.
WebShaman | The keenest sorrow (and greatest truth) is to recognize ourselves as the sole cause of all our adversities.
- Sophocles
posted 06-07-2009 18:33
If you would ask questions that weren't completely nonsensical, I might be able to Jade.