<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You're assuming that we're smarter than other animals and that all animals are stupid. Yes, they act on instinct, but they also reason and understand.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well... that depends, what are you going to qualify as 'reasoning and understanding'? When talking about animals, many behaviours, such as altruism for example, have direct consequences on their ability to reproduce. It isn't like they are truely demonstrating intelligence, feelings or whatever, it is usually due to the fact they are propagating their genes in the optimal way. For example, ants use a fungus that produces an antibiotic to keep mould from growing on their food fungus farm (or is it the other way around O_o...). Is this intelligence? No, probably not. It is unlikely that the ants deliberately discovered the antibiotic reistant fungus, and probably picked it up from natural fungus growing in their farms. Colonies that developed a symbiotic relationship did better than those that didn't and the rest is history. It isn't really the same thing as what we do with GE bacteria for example or with other biological controls we do.
As for a sponge, care to make any logical sounding argument that a sponge or jellyfish can reason or understand? Or are we going to conveniently confine the definition of 'animal' to higher vertebrates? Now that I think of it, care to provide an invertebrate example of reasoning and understanding?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I'm not saying that we're "no better" than dogs when it comes to sex. I'm just saying that sex has more than one reason other than procreation.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But hold on, dogs only breed due to signals from a female at certain times of the year. This is all programmed in animals so that they breed at times where conditions are BEST to rear offspring. There isn't some sort of logic behind that other than it is the best time to do it. Animals don't have sex to affirm a relationship or bond, because most don't have that to begin with (including pack/herd animals like wolves and baboons), it's simply all about genes.
Humans are different in that respect and is why we shouldn't be comparing the likes of homosexual behaviours in humans to animals.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It's also for pleasure and expressing love.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Love is a human emotion, and you really can't apply human emotions onto animals.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->(Saying that other animals don't love is just ignorant)<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I disagree and would bet that you'd have a massively difficult time giving a SINGLE example of an insect demonstrating 'love'. Every time you'd have to come up with far fetched vertebrate examples (which would boil back down to genes) or redefine animal to suit your premise.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Also, I've got a problem with beastiality (Having sex with another species purely for the sex, against the animal's will) but see nothing wrong with zoophilia. (Having sex with another species because you love the animal, and because it loves you)<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I would support neither, and the second one is just completely wrong on so many levels.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Once again, saying that other animals do not love is just an ignorant statement. That's like saying that humans don't have a killing instinct, or a "Fight or Flight" instict.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hold on, no it isn't. You are comparing an undefined term to those that are in fact biologically built in (and we can see why). The flight or fight responce is actually based off hormonal levels and rapid physiological changes that occur over a very short period. Many chordates (such as mammals) express these kinds of systems. Trying to argue (as you are) that a lion loves it's cubs or a bird its chicks IS totally silly.
I would tend to agree, because I think there is a firm psychological or genetic basis in it somewhere. But this is not 100% known for certain, it could be a choice, we don't know yet. Of course, if you know the answer you could win a nobel prize in psychology for revealing it (scientifically).
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> You're assuming that sex is ONLY for procreation (having children) but it's not. It's also for pleasure and to express love.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Exactly, in humans this is exactly true because we're not really like other animals in this respect. Whereas in most animals sex is simply a desire to spread genes, in us it's uniquely different partly because we can breed all year around. The only other animal that has sex for pleasure is in fact...dolphins. I suppose you could attempt to argue that certain kinds of monkeys (bonobos) do as well, but that is less conclusive.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I know you aren't saying that they shouldn't be allowed to have sex or be in love. I'm saying that it is normal, just like heterosexual sex.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well it depends sorta on who you are wanting to talk to. Certainly attraction to members of your own sex occurs throughout many different animals, monkeys, apes, dogs and possibly dolphins engage in a bit of homosexual conduct. The difference comes down to the fact that homosexuality is death to ones particular genes in 'animal' populations and not really in human ones (Two words: Sperm Bank or Egg Donor). This makes the situation different on a biological level, especially considering that **** couples CAN have children via rather 'unnatural' means.
In addition, for **** men, going the anal route is usually very damagine to anal tissues and is why AIDs was so prevalent in **** male populations. No condoms, and massive tissue damage allows the virus to get in extremely easily. It doesn't take a lot of investigation to reveal that human anuses aren't designed for having a sausage stuck up them.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It's obvious that I'm not going to convince you, but I want to get this clear in your head: Just because you think that it isn't normal doesn't make it true.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Very true.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->There is no such thing as a "normal" animal, either. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Depends, according to vegetarians, animal rights activists etc I've ever argued with the only animals that exist are chordates :/ Insects are never considered, cephalopods unimportant and sponges don't exist. But yes, I'd agree there is no such thing as a normal animal, but there are normal biological behaviours observed right throughout the animal kingdom right up to humans. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Very well stated. Pretty much sums up my thoughts on the "nature of homosexuality". Also, it appears Strongbad and I had similar ideas to begin with.
Glad to see someone steered this topic somewhat back on topic also.
Me neither. After having written this, I'll remove some of the more obstructive posts, hoping that the topic can be brought back on track.
As a general rule herein, stay away from religious points. No matter what Bible, Torah, Koran or Sanskrit say, any contemporary American lawyer will be able to cite a rather big number of surpreme court rulings that make a religious law inacceptable as basis for national legislation.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->No matter what Bible, Torah, Koran or Sanskrit say, any contemporary American lawyer will be able to cite a rather big number of surpreme court rulings that make a religious law inacceptable as basis for national legislation.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> That's incorrect.
While the Establishment Clause is usually interpreted to forbid even the superficial endorsement of one particular religion not only by Congress but by any government agency, I challenge you to cite but one SC ruling which supports your claim that a religious law cannot be transformed into national law <i>if the religion it came from is not mentioned</i>.
That is: Religion R's holy book says: "Act A is evil." Politician P reads the book, agrees with it, successfully finds a majority for the law, and Congress legislates: "Act A is punishable by prison." (Notice religion R is neither established nor mentioned.)
Of course this exemplary process is legal; religion has influenced legislation like that many times in the United States. There is no basis to assume this relationship has suddenly become unconstitutional.
<!--QuoteBegin--Twex+Nov 25 2003, 08:12 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Twex @ Nov 25 2003, 08:12 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->No matter what Bible, Torah, Koran or Sanskrit say, any contemporary American lawyer will be able to cite a rather big number of surpreme court rulings that make a religious law inacceptable as basis for national legislation.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> That's incorrect.
While the Establishment Clause is usually interpreted to forbid even the superficial endorsement of one particular religion not only by Congress but by any government agency, I challenge you to cite but one SC ruling which supports your claim that a religious law cannot be transformed into national law <i>if the religion it came from is not mentioned</i>.
That is: Religion R's holy book says: "Act A is evil." Politician P reads the book, agrees with it, successfully finds a majority for the law, and Congress legislates: "Act A is punishable by prison." (Notice religion R is neither established nor mentioned.)
Of course this exemplary process is legal; religion has influenced legislation like that many times in the United States. There is no basis to assume this relationship has suddenly become unconstitutional. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> *sigh* The whole point of him making that statement was to steer the discussion back on topic.
To elaborate Parasites remark, Twex, can you explain to me how this exception (whichs chance in front of a court we both, being neither American nor specialists on the US' jurisdicative tradition, can barely hope to fittingly estimate) bears any significance on the last few pages of strictly Bible-based discussion?
Then either get this back on track or I'll lock it.
I think many of you forget the fact that the laws and regulations of the U.S. government are base upon the bible. When the founding fathers wrote up the Constitution, they based it upon the morals found in the Christian religion. Without religion, morals can't exist, because there is no basis for creating a law or moral (God's will). That's why it is illegal today to have more than one wife, for homosexuals to marry, for older people to engage in a sexual activity with a younger person. You could say all these things wouldn't negatively affect another person if all parties agreed, but yet we consider it immoral because it is found in the bible and thus made a way into the lawbooks.
People can't go spouting that homosexual marriage is a morally acceptable because it doesn't affect the next person. Yet most people agree that it is immoral to molest children and marry more than one wife at the same time. You have to draw the line somewhere, and it either needs to be at the point where the state recognizes it's fundamental religious foundation and outlaw homosexual marriage (possibly even make g*y sodomy illegal again), or totally seperate church from the government and leave it up to local religious institutions to teach morals, while the government just enforces the laws designed to keep the peace.
I feel like this is a political joke, with people opposed to homosexual marriage and unions but also stating that there is a clear seperation of church and state. Anyhow, noting the importance of this issue, a decision needs to be made at the federal level. There shouldn't be a division among states with some recognizing homosexual marriage while the others deny domestic partner benefits that marriage guarantees because they don't recognize homosexual marriage.
EDIT: Also, the Mass. ruling doesn't necessarily mean that g@y marriage will be legal. The legislatures will create a law that is in compliance with the courts, and those sneaky politicians will likely do anything possible to bend the ruling as far as possible.
<!--QuoteBegin--Keyser59+Nov 26 2003, 07:11 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Keyser59 @ Nov 26 2003, 07:11 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I think many of you forget the fact that the laws and regulations of the U.S. government are base upon the bible. When the founding fathers wrote up the Constitution, they based it upon the morals found in the Christian religion. Without religion, morals can't exist, because there is no basis for creating a law or moral (God's will). That's why it is illegal today to have more than one wife, for homosexuals to marry, for older people to engage in a sexual activity with a younger person. You could say all these things wouldn't negatively affect another person if all parties agreed, but yet we consider it immoral because it is found in the bible and thus made a way into the lawbooks.
People can't go spouting that homosexual marriage is a morally acceptable because it doesn't affect the next person. Yet most people agree that it is immoral to molest children and marry more than one wife at the same time. You have to draw the line somewhere, and it either needs to be at the point where the state recognizes it's fundamental religious foundation and outlaw homosexual marriage (possibly even make g*y sodomy illegal again), or totally seperate church from the government and leave it up to local religious institutions to teach morals, while the government just enforces the laws designed to keep the peace.
I feel like this is a political joke, with people opposed to homosexual marriage and unions but also stating that there is a clear seperation of church and state. Anyhow, noting the importance of this issue, a decision needs to be made at the federal level. There shouldn't be a division among states with some recognizing homosexual marriage while the others deny domestic partner benefits that marriage guarantees because they don't recognize homosexual marriage.
EDIT: Also, the Mass. ruling doesn't necessarily mean that g@y marriage will be legal. The legislatures will create a law that is in compliance with the courts, and those sneaky politicians will likely do anything possible to bend the ruling as far as possible. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Not exactly. Only a few of the founding Fathers were christian. George Washington, John Adams, Ben Franklin, Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, were fervently against any correlation between church and state, and Abe Lincoln was not a member of any church. Research what many of the founding fathers had to say about religion.
There were far more Baptists than Christians during the founding years of this country, even though religion as a whole was only practiced by a very small portion of the population compared to today. Baptists beleive that law lay in the hands of man, not god, and they wree insturmental in creating the seperation of church and state.
The Treaty of Tripoli was unanimously passed by the Senate in 1797, article 11 reads partly: "The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion." Noone is known to have debated it in the senate, and there was no record of any public outcry. Keep in mind that the public was well informed and not nearly as apethetic about politics...so the fact that there wasnt enough public opposition to even register with lawmakers, suggests that the public at the time supported the seperation of church and state.
Its not to say christians of the time didnt have some influesnce, but I think at that time they understood and upheld the seperation of church and state. Dont confuse McCarthy with the men who founded this nation.
<!--QuoteBegin--Keyser59+Nov 26 2003, 11:11 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Keyser59 @ Nov 26 2003, 11:11 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> People can't go spouting that homosexual marriage is a morally acceptable because it doesn't affect the next person. Yet most people agree that it is immoral to molest children and marry more than one wife at the same time. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> So you're saying that molesting children doesn't affect anyone else? Like, for example, the children? Riiiiight.
You can make a case for illegalizing bigamy on the grounds that all the economic laws pertaining to the legal institution of marriage were designed for two people, and might break down (giving some sort of unfair tax loophole or something) under a system in which an arbitrary number of people can enter a marriage contract. Personally, I think bigamy should be legalized and other laws modified to make sure it works out fairly, but we're not discussing bigamy, we're discussing homosexual marriage (which does not arguably impact anything else if illegalized, since men and women are supposed to be equal in the eyes of the law).
What it comes down to is this: laws are not meant to enforce morality. They're supposed to protect the rights of citizens, as outlined in the U.S. Constitution. (We're talking about a USA law here, so I'm going to discuss this in the framework of the U.S. legal system.) The Constitution does NOT provide any rights that are conceivably infringed by allowing homosexuals to get married. Whether or not a few heterosexuals might think it's "immoral" is completely immaterial. You'll note there are no laws against Satan worship, even if some people think Satan worship is immoral. Why? Because we're guaranteed freedom to practice whatever religion we want - <i>as long as in practicing said religion we do not infringe on the rights of others</i> - (so don't start giving me crap about oh but what if they want to do human sacrifices blah blah blah).
The teachings of a given religion can certainly inspire the creation of certain laws. There's nothing wrong with that. A given religion agreeing with a law does not invalidate that law. However, it MUST be possible to defend that law WITHOUT referring back to the religion. A law against murder, even if the idea of it came right from the Old Testament, can be justified because murder infringes on the right of another citizen to live. See how that works?
So now, if you want to argue against homosexual marriage being legal, here's what you have to do. Fill in the blanks: "The existence of homosexual marriage infringes on _______'s right to ___________, as granted in section __________ of the US Constitution. Hence, it should be illegal."
If you can't do that, better write your congressman and propose an amendment to said Constitution.
I guess molest was the wrong word, but one can make an argument that if both the child and the adult agree to it, nobody's rights would be infringed upon. I wasn't referring to an adult molesting a minor against his/her wishes.
You can't argue that the bible had NO influence on the laws created by our founding fathers. There are enscriptions on public buildings with religious connections. Other examples like opening Congress with a prayer, or the ever so obvious "In God we trust" on the dollar bill prove that .
I don't care how many times they say guarantee there was a seperation of church, religion was still a huge influence in the drafting of the first laws, or it wouldn't make sense that regulations on homosexual marriage exist. The fact that the main opposers of homosexual marriage are the religious right and the church should also give you a clue that this law has religious background.
OK, I guess it's obvious you won't find back to the initial point of the topic. I'd suggest somebody starts a 'Religion and its influence on the American Constitution' - thread to resolve that issue before going into this one again.
Comments
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You're assuming that we're smarter than other animals and that all animals are stupid. Yes, they act on instinct, but they also reason and understand.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well... that depends, what are you going to qualify as 'reasoning and understanding'? When talking about animals, many behaviours, such as altruism for example, have direct consequences on their ability to reproduce. It isn't like they are truely demonstrating intelligence, feelings or whatever, it is usually due to the fact they are propagating their genes in the optimal way. For example, ants use a fungus that produces an antibiotic to keep mould from growing on their food fungus farm (or is it the other way around O_o...). Is this intelligence? No, probably not. It is unlikely that the ants deliberately discovered the antibiotic reistant fungus, and probably picked it up from natural fungus growing in their farms. Colonies that developed a symbiotic relationship did better than those that didn't and the rest is history. It isn't really the same thing as what we do with GE bacteria for example or with other biological controls we do.
As for a sponge, care to make any logical sounding argument that a sponge or jellyfish can reason or understand? Or are we going to conveniently confine the definition of 'animal' to higher vertebrates? Now that I think of it, care to provide an invertebrate example of reasoning and understanding?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I'm not saying that we're "no better" than dogs when it comes to sex. I'm just saying that sex has more than one reason other than procreation.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But hold on, dogs only breed due to signals from a female at certain times of the year. This is all programmed in animals so that they breed at times where conditions are BEST to rear offspring. There isn't some sort of logic behind that other than it is the best time to do it. Animals don't have sex to affirm a relationship or bond, because most don't have that to begin with (including pack/herd animals like wolves and baboons), it's simply all about genes.
Humans are different in that respect and is why we shouldn't be comparing the likes of homosexual behaviours in humans to animals.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It's also for pleasure and expressing love.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Love is a human emotion, and you really can't apply human emotions onto animals.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->(Saying that other animals don't love is just ignorant)<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Or just good biological science.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Animals love, too.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I disagree and would bet that you'd have a massively difficult time giving a SINGLE example of an insect demonstrating 'love'. Every time you'd have to come up with far fetched vertebrate examples (which would boil back down to genes) or redefine animal to suit your premise.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Also, I've got a problem with beastiality (Having sex with another species purely for the sex, against the animal's will) but see nothing wrong with zoophilia. (Having sex with another species because you love the animal, and because it loves you)<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I would support neither, and the second one is just completely wrong on so many levels.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Once again, saying that other animals do not love is just an ignorant statement. That's like saying that humans don't have a killing instinct, or a "Fight or Flight" instict.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hold on, no it isn't. You are comparing an undefined term to those that are in fact biologically built in (and we can see why). The flight or fight responce is actually based off hormonal levels and rapid physiological changes that occur over a very short period. Many chordates (such as mammals) express these kinds of systems. Trying to argue (as you are) that a lion loves it's cubs or a bird its chicks IS totally silly.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Homosexuality isn't a choice.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I would tend to agree, because I think there is a firm psychological or genetic basis in it somewhere. But this is not 100% known for certain, it could be a choice, we don't know yet. Of course, if you know the answer you could win a nobel prize in psychology for revealing it (scientifically).
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> You're assuming that sex is ONLY for procreation (having children) but it's not. It's also for pleasure and to express love.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Exactly, in humans this is exactly true because we're not really like other animals in this respect. Whereas in most animals sex is simply a desire to spread genes, in us it's uniquely different partly because we can breed all year around. The only other animal that has sex for pleasure is in fact...dolphins. I suppose you could attempt to argue that certain kinds of monkeys (bonobos) do as well, but that is less conclusive.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I know you aren't saying that they shouldn't be allowed to have sex or be in love. I'm saying that it is normal, just like heterosexual sex.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well it depends sorta on who you are wanting to talk to. Certainly attraction to members of your own sex occurs throughout many different animals, monkeys, apes, dogs and possibly dolphins engage in a bit of homosexual conduct. The difference comes down to the fact that homosexuality is death to ones particular genes in 'animal' populations and not really in human ones (Two words: Sperm Bank or Egg Donor). This makes the situation different on a biological level, especially considering that **** couples CAN have children via rather 'unnatural' means.
In addition, for **** men, going the anal route is usually very damagine to anal tissues and is why AIDs was so prevalent in **** male populations. No condoms, and massive tissue damage allows the virus to get in extremely easily. It doesn't take a lot of investigation to reveal that human anuses aren't designed for having a sausage stuck up them.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It's obvious that I'm not going to convince you, but I want to get this clear in your head: Just because you think that it isn't normal doesn't make it true.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Very true.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->There is no such thing as a "normal" animal, either. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Depends, according to vegetarians, animal rights activists etc I've ever argued with the only animals that exist are chordates :/ Insects are never considered, cephalopods unimportant and sponges don't exist. But yes, I'd agree there is no such thing as a normal animal, but there are normal biological behaviours observed right throughout the animal kingdom right up to humans. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Very well stated. Pretty much sums up my thoughts on the "nature of homosexuality". Also, it appears Strongbad and I had similar ideas to begin with.
Glad to see someone steered this topic somewhat back on topic also.
[edit]Don't want to get this topic locked.[/edit]
As a general rule herein, stay away from religious points. No matter what Bible, Torah, Koran or Sanskrit say, any contemporary American lawyer will be able to cite a rather big number of surpreme court rulings that make a religious law inacceptable as basis for national legislation.
That's incorrect.
While the Establishment Clause is usually interpreted to forbid even the superficial endorsement of one particular religion not only by Congress but by any government agency, I challenge you to cite but one SC ruling which supports your claim that a religious law cannot be transformed into national law <i>if the religion it came from is not mentioned</i>.
That is:
Religion R's holy book says: "Act A is evil."
Politician P reads the book, agrees with it, successfully finds a majority for the law, and Congress legislates:
"Act A is punishable by prison." (Notice religion R is neither established nor mentioned.)
Of course this exemplary process is legal; religion has influenced legislation like that many times in the United States. There is no basis to assume this relationship has suddenly become unconstitutional.
That's incorrect.
While the Establishment Clause is usually interpreted to forbid even the superficial endorsement of one particular religion not only by Congress but by any government agency, I challenge you to cite but one SC ruling which supports your claim that a religious law cannot be transformed into national law <i>if the religion it came from is not mentioned</i>.
That is:
Religion R's holy book says: "Act A is evil."
Politician P reads the book, agrees with it, successfully finds a majority for the law, and Congress legislates:
"Act A is punishable by prison." (Notice religion R is neither established nor mentioned.)
Of course this exemplary process is legal; religion has influenced legislation like that many times in the United States. There is no basis to assume this relationship has suddenly become unconstitutional. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
*sigh*
The whole point of him making that statement was to steer the discussion back on topic.
Then either get this back on track or I'll lock it.
People can't go spouting that homosexual marriage is a morally acceptable because it doesn't affect the next person. Yet most people agree that it is immoral to molest children and marry more than one wife at the same time. You have to draw the line somewhere, and it either needs to be at the point where the state recognizes it's fundamental religious foundation and outlaw homosexual marriage (possibly even make g*y sodomy illegal again), or totally seperate church from the government and leave it up to local religious institutions to teach morals, while the government just enforces the laws designed to keep the peace.
I feel like this is a political joke, with people opposed to homosexual marriage and unions but also stating that there is a clear seperation of church and state. Anyhow, noting the importance of this issue, a decision needs to be made at the federal level. There shouldn't be a division among states with some recognizing homosexual marriage while the others deny domestic partner benefits that marriage guarantees because they don't recognize homosexual marriage.
EDIT: Also, the Mass. ruling doesn't necessarily mean that g@y marriage will be legal. The legislatures will create a law that is in compliance with the courts, and those sneaky politicians will likely do anything possible to bend the ruling as far as possible.
People can't go spouting that homosexual marriage is a morally acceptable because it doesn't affect the next person. Yet most people agree that it is immoral to molest children and marry more than one wife at the same time. You have to draw the line somewhere, and it either needs to be at the point where the state recognizes it's fundamental religious foundation and outlaw homosexual marriage (possibly even make g*y sodomy illegal again), or totally seperate church from the government and leave it up to local religious institutions to teach morals, while the government just enforces the laws designed to keep the peace.
I feel like this is a political joke, with people opposed to homosexual marriage and unions but also stating that there is a clear seperation of church and state. Anyhow, noting the importance of this issue, a decision needs to be made at the federal level. There shouldn't be a division among states with some recognizing homosexual marriage while the others deny domestic partner benefits that marriage guarantees because they don't recognize homosexual marriage.
EDIT: Also, the Mass. ruling doesn't necessarily mean that g@y marriage will be legal. The legislatures will create a law that is in compliance with the courts, and those sneaky politicians will likely do anything possible to bend the ruling as far as possible. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not exactly. Only a few of the founding Fathers were christian. George Washington, John Adams, Ben Franklin, Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, were fervently against any correlation between church and state, and Abe Lincoln was not a member of any church. Research what many of the founding fathers had to say about religion.
There were far more Baptists than Christians during the founding years of this country, even though religion as a whole was only practiced by a very small portion of the population compared to today. Baptists beleive that law lay in the hands of man, not god, and they wree insturmental in creating the seperation of church and state.
The Treaty of Tripoli was unanimously passed by the Senate in 1797, article 11 reads partly: "The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion." Noone is known to have debated it in the senate, and there was no record of any public outcry. Keep in mind that the public was well informed and not nearly as apethetic about politics...so the fact that there wasnt enough public opposition to even register with lawmakers, suggests that the public at the time supported the seperation of church and state.
Its not to say christians of the time didnt have some influesnce, but I think at that time they understood and upheld the seperation of church and state. Dont confuse McCarthy with the men who founded this nation.
So you're saying that molesting children doesn't affect anyone else? Like, for example, the children? Riiiiight.
You can make a case for illegalizing bigamy on the grounds that all the economic laws pertaining to the legal institution of marriage were designed for two people, and might break down (giving some sort of unfair tax loophole or something) under a system in which an arbitrary number of people can enter a marriage contract. Personally, I think bigamy should be legalized and other laws modified to make sure it works out fairly, but we're not discussing bigamy, we're discussing homosexual marriage (which does not arguably impact anything else if illegalized, since men and women are supposed to be equal in the eyes of the law).
What it comes down to is this: laws are not meant to enforce morality. They're supposed to protect the rights of citizens, as outlined in the U.S. Constitution. (We're talking about a USA law here, so I'm going to discuss this in the framework of the U.S. legal system.) The Constitution does NOT provide any rights that are conceivably infringed by allowing homosexuals to get married. Whether or not a few heterosexuals might think it's "immoral" is completely immaterial. You'll note there are no laws against Satan worship, even if some people think Satan worship is immoral. Why? Because we're guaranteed freedom to practice whatever religion we want - <i>as long as in practicing said religion we do not infringe on the rights of others</i> - (so don't start giving me crap about oh but what if they want to do human sacrifices blah blah blah).
The teachings of a given religion can certainly inspire the creation of certain laws. There's nothing wrong with that. A given religion agreeing with a law does not invalidate that law. However, it MUST be possible to defend that law WITHOUT referring back to the religion. A law against murder, even if the idea of it came right from the Old Testament, can be justified because murder infringes on the right of another citizen to live. See how that works?
So now, if you want to argue against homosexual marriage being legal, here's what you have to do. Fill in the blanks: "The existence of homosexual marriage infringes on _______'s right to ___________, as granted in section __________ of the US Constitution. Hence, it should be illegal."
If you can't do that, better write your congressman and propose an amendment to said Constitution.
You can't argue that the bible had NO influence on the laws created by our founding fathers. There are enscriptions on public buildings with religious connections. Other examples like opening Congress with a prayer, or the ever so obvious "In God we trust" on the dollar bill prove that .
I don't care how many times they say guarantee there was a seperation of church, religion was still a huge influence in the drafting of the first laws, or it wouldn't make sense that regulations on homosexual marriage exist. The fact that the main opposers of homosexual marriage are the religious right and the church should also give you a clue that this law has religious background.
<span style='color:red'>***Locked.***</span>