For all of the sexually repressed right-wingers who believe contrary to facts that GOD objects to any sexual orientation other than monogamous heterosexuality, here is more evidence that they have no idea of the mysterious ways and variety in which God or nature operates. Clearly if this is the way in which nature is created, a spectrum of sexuality in man and other animals serves a function which we are only beginning to appreciate and understand, and is not EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEvil or an abomination to creation, but rather an important part of its diversity.
Dolphins are credited with an exceptional intelligence, and clearly as well they demonstrate the kind of problem solving and altruistic behavior, as well as possibly possessing self awareness that we now understand is not the unique province of humans as well. In this regard they appear to exceed the qualities we think of as inherently part of humanity rather better than some of our more bigoted regressive human clergy who find God's creations either an abomination or a dangerous choice.
from MSN:
Researchers find bisexual and exclusively gay dolphins
Dolphins are considered such radiantly happy creatures that "dolphin assisted therapy" (aka, hanging out with dolphins) is practiced as a way to treat human physical and mental suffering. Well, maybe an open society is part of the dolphin's allure, too. According to one study of 120 bottlenose dolphins in Australia, researchers found a lot of male dolphins enjoy "extensive bisexuality." And not just that, but some pairs engage in "exclusive homosexuality," reports Discovery News. Pairs, trios or small groups of male dolphins will form exclusive groups that are sexual, social, and sustainable. One herd of seven males spent 17 years together in an intimate and affectionate clique.
Hello Dog Gone,
ReplyDeleteI guess in some small minded people’s thoughts and rational is that I would venture a guess in their silly way of thinking is that Dolphins can be sent to Hell too.
Of course these types should not be allowed to breed as they do reduce the potential mental level of the gene pool.
No we dont KR. If you are LGBT you do not have the same rights.
ReplyDeleteThat's like saying that under slavery, everyone had the same rights because whites had the right to own black people as property, and that was true for blacks - they had that same right under those same laws to be owned by whites as property.
The traditional understanding of sexuality and marriage was wrong. We know much more now than we did in the past about the role of sexuality in nature, includign human nature. Prior assumptions, based largely on religious ideas, were incorrect, ARE incorrect. Those same sources considered it perfectly legal and moral to own other people as slaves, even to sell one's own daughter into sexual slavery. Clearly, some elements of the Bible - for example - and other religious texts are incorrect about some things.
This is one of them. These kinds of relationships in observed populations of species has been known for a long time. Because of fear of the very kind of intolerant attitude you show, those scientists who were observing a wide variety of speices were AFRAID to report their scientific observations.
It is not only male lions, btw, it is most of the species of felines that do that. Female praying mantis bite the heads of the male instantly killing him; however that is not a practice, any more than the killing of young - not just newborns - among felines across a broad spectrum of other species, the way that gender and sexual orientation are, so your example isn't really applicable.
It would be appropriate if this were a single species example, or a single group of species, but it is not. Same sex orientation and gender differences, even changing genders, are common across a much broader spectrum, including insects bird species, reptiles and amphibians, as well as a wide variety of mammals, especially primates, our closest genetic relatives.
Hope you enjoyed your soup and salad, not sure how that applies to this, but I do enjoy hearing from you.
Just be a little more applicable next time in your choice of supporting facts; that was cherry picking, providing a source which supports your point but which is narrowly selective rather than true generally.
When I make the statement that it is rare for someone to be struck by lightning, listing 10 people who have, and another 5 who have been struck twice doesn't change that the overwhelming vast majority of people are never struck by lightning.
We do NOT all have the same rights. It is a false argument.
Heterosexual individuals can marry the adult they love and to whom they are sexually attracted as part of that love. They are allowed legally to an internal integrity, to act consistently with their feelings.
ReplyDeleteThey receive tax benefits and special legal rights that institutionalize those feelings.
That is not true for people who are not attracted to the opposite sex, which is natural and normal for a certain percentage of individuals. It is true of sexual attraction and pair bonding, including life-long pair bonding and raising young, in a variety of species besides humans. In other words, it is a normal and natural occurrence not an abnormality.
The specific rights involved are the right to autonomy, the right to physical integrity, and the right to persona identity which includes sexual identity.
The other right denied is the right to marry. The SCOTUS blog has an excellent post on that:
http://www.scotusblog.com/2011/08/the-right-to-marry-and-the-right-to-remain-married/
Denying same sex couples the right to marry is very similar to when anti-miscegenation laws denied people of different races to marry. It volated the rights of those individuals in very similar ways.
You didn't ask me to cite examples; you only told me what you had for lunch, and cited slightly inaccurate information about lions.
Felines have some males that kill cubs, and other males that don't.
http://jennifercopley.suite101.com/tom-cats-and-kittens-a122729
Felines are predominantly seasonally polyestrus, with a gestation of 63 days. Seasonlly polyestrus means they have multiple estrus cycles in a row, and that the onset of the estrus cycles has to do with the amount of daylight, the length of time there is sun during the day. Domestic cats also come into heat within 1-4 weeks after giving birth.
What you fail to note is that often there are more than one lion that fathers litters of lion cubs, and more than one male lion to a pack.
Unlike my example, yours is feline specific; my example was far broader, and therefore had greater applicability to being a natural occurrence. We don't understand why this seems to be hardwired behavior, but it clearly would seem to put sexual orientation in a different category than learned behavior or some sort of aberttant choice, unless you wish to ascribe a level of thinking to all of those species that is not supported by any science whatsoever.
It argues very compellingly that sexuality is hardwired into who we are, and that a spectrum of sexual orientation is perfectly normal. Therefore, there is no legitimate reason to deny people the right to marry on the basis of gender, and it is a violation of their right to identity, autonomy and integrity to deny them legal marriage.
That a comprehensive enough list for you Kevin?
Not a false list at all, KR. It is a widely accepted list of human rights world wide, including all but the most backward Americans.
ReplyDeleteI can name quite a few people I know who are not allowed to marry their partner with whom they have a spousal relationship that is not recognized by some state laws. I won't name them here out of respect for their privacy.
You persist in incorrectly defining marriage. You would be discriminated against and denied your human rights and your civil rights if you could not marry your wife, but could only marry men, given what I understand to be your exclusively heterosexual orientation.
People were denied their rights when they were prevented from legally marrying the person of their choice on the basis of race, during the era of anti-miscegenation laws.
At issue is not that there is NO right to marry, but that there is a violation of the right to marry the conesnting adult that you love, following the premise that love and committment, including a sexual relationship, are the foundation for that relationship of marriage.
If you are only allowed to marry someone you do not love and with whom you do not desire a sexual relationship, you are being denied the right to be who you are - the right of identity and integrity (physical, psychological and emotional) and the right of autonomy - the right to make personal decisions for themselves without the wrongful interference of government.
The very foundational assumptions for limiting marriage to heterosexuals is flawed, and therefore the laws which limit marriage to heterosexuals is wrong.
On what basis KR do you beleive that laws are correct which restrict marriage to heterosexual marriage?
If by going all Tina Turner on me, you mean you want to sing to me, please feel free to record an audio file and send it to me in an email. I'd get a kick out of it.
If your are asserting 'What's Love Got to Do with It?" I can answer that as well, with a statement from Mildred Loving of the SCOTUS case that ruled miscegenation laws unconstitutional in Loving v. Virginia, back in 1967. She made the statement on the anniversary of the decision in 2007:
"Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don't think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the "wrong kind of person" for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people's religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people's civil rights.
I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard's and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That's what Loving, and loving, are all about."
THAT my friend is 'what love has to do with it'.
Don't disillusion me Kevin; I prefer to think of you as a romantic man who loves his wife and kids. That being true, you should empathize thoroughly with what love has to do with it.
Sorry about the typos above; I'm trying to type one-handed while holding a squirming puppy. The keyboard skills suffer, but it sure is fun.
ReplyDeleteThe government marriage license is what gives official recognition to a relationship that has traditionally been based on love - and property.
ReplyDeleteSibling love is a very different relationship, and a different kind of love; it is a false comparison here. Come on KR, you can provide better logic than this nonsense.
EVERY person who is prohibited from marrying the person to whom they are committed and whom they love and with whom they live in a spousal relationship is legally banned from getting married. That denies the right to autonomy, to integrity, and to identity, as well as denying the right to marry. Ergo, THOSE people do NOT hae the same rights.
Give me a valid basis for banning gay marriage KR. You can't. Repeating a bumper sticker doesn't change that it is a lie.
YOU lose. Thanks for playing. Come up with something other than repeating bullshit next time in order for your comment to be given space here.
KR, gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people are denied their rights, including the right to marry their spousal partners.
ReplyDeleteYou mentioned sibling marriage, incest. We know that there is a genuine harm in people who pervert that kind of familial relationship. It damages people.
There is no equivalent or comparable damage in same sex relationships. They are as healthy as heterosexual relationships. Same sex couples are as successful as heterosexual couples as parents and as spouses, unlike incestuous relationships.
Therefore you made a false comparison.
Provide a legitimate basis for denying same sex couples the right to marry. If you can't - and you can't clearly - then you lose the argument.
You LOSE.
Kevin,
ReplyDeleteFirst, "homo" is generally seen as a purposefully deragutory term, it is typically used as an insult toward a heterosexual, especially among adolescents. I'm sure you know that. Is it your intent to use a term which ISN'T generally used by people respectful of Gays and Lesbians to refer to Gays?
Second, your assertion that people, if they have the right to an act, equals having the right to exercise/engage in an act freely, is specious. In fact, it's laughable. Having the right to VOTE, does not equal having the right to VOTE for someone of your choice. In the Soviet Union, for years, they put up puppets, you'd have one or two choices of people, none of whom you liked or wanted, you could not write in a name - do you consider that the same as having FREE elections? I'm sure you don't, and I hope you can now see the foolishness of your argument.
Gays and Lesbians do not have the right to marry the person they love.
Gays and Lesbians do not have the right to inherit and keep the assets they and their partners have accumulated through years of shared sacrifice should their life-partner die.
And importantly, Churches and their parishoners do not have the right to offer the churchly sacriment of marraige to whomever they chose, they are prohibited from the free expression of their religion by the INTRUSION of others into their church when those others pass laws forbidding a church from performing the sacriment of marraige. It's a big government intrusion into church.
Your arguments are, as I'm sure you understand, purposefully myopic, claiming that having the chance to, for example, drive, equals having the chance to drive the car you like, but it's far more important, Gays and Lesbians are prevented from having the state recognize their love and commitment to the person they love in the way that the state provides tax breaks and special consideration for heterosexual couples in the same situations. That you can't see marrying the person you LOVE is far different from simply marrying does not do you credit. Is it your recommendation that Gays and Lesbians be foreced to marry someone they don't chose or if they instead chose NOT to do so, to never be allowed to marry? Are you serious?