Gov. David Paterson of New York has told state agencies to recognize same-sex marriages performed in states and countries where they are legal, his spokeswoman said Wednesday.
The governor’s legal counsel told state agencies in a May 14 memo to revise policies and regulations to recognize same-sex marriages performed in California and Massachusetts as well as Canada and other countries that allow gays and lesbians to marry, said Erin Duggan, the governor’s spokeswoman.
The memo informed state agencies that failing to recognize gay marriages would violate the New York’s human rights law, Duggan said.
Slowly, gradually, as each timorous reactionary whimper dissipates, another class of 2nd-class citizenship continues to end in this land.
#123–Thomas==what I understand you to say is that incest marriages must be allowed.
Futher, you switched terminology and are calling marriage a privilege that can not brook illegal discrimination and NOT a basic human right?
Hmmm. Where does THAT take me?
Well, as a “privilege” the State is supposed to be empowered to discriminate if it has an “overwhelming” justification for it? In todays world, I actually don’t see one regarding gay marriage vs hetero either as both are qualified to raise children which I do think is an overwhelming justification for discrimination==it just is no longer applicable given adoption and artificial methods.
Perhaps time has overtaken my once valid position?
OK, I am changing my mind. Thanks.
All you assholes against gay-marriage are stick in the muds who haven’t had a new idea in 30 years!!!
GET IN LINE, OR GET OUT OF THE WAY!!!
#125 – bobbo
So, so… calm down. Here… take a pill. 🙂
#123
> what I understand you to say is that
> incest marriages must be allowed.
Privately, the State has no authority to grant nor deny incestuous commitments. No matter of tyranny can prevent two people, even from the same lineage, from privately making a commitment to each other. However, if the State does have the authority to exclude incestuous couples from certain benefits, then it also has the authority to exclude incestuous relations in other areas. Is the legislature empowered to pass laws that only permit heterosexual pairs to drive on a certain highways? Why not?
I did not switch terminology. Rather, I’m trying to be quite clear in my intent and to do that I’m trying to be careful about my use of the term “marriage” since each person has ideas as to its meaning. That two or more people privately commit to each other is entirely outside the authority of the State to grant or deny. The core issue here is the criteria on which the State can provide benefits to certain couples and not others without, as you said, overwhelming justification. If the State cannot discriminate in this manner, that leaves the State with two choices. Either let any two people enter into such a commitment with no prejudice as to lineage, gender or sexual preference or eliminate all such benefits.
# 118 Misanthropic Scott
If you have some statistics (ie: average numbers) that show that a significant population of homosexuals exists in a wide variety of species of the sexual animals from Earth’s 2-50 million species, do share.
I’m talking exclusively homosexual a la human and not just “exhibiting homosexual behavior.” I’m not interested in temporarily confused behavioral by-product of sexual desire, such as a leg-humping dog.
And evolution being the amazing adapter that it is, I’m not at all going to be surprised if some examples of what I ask are to be found, somewhere. But what I need are scores of undisputed peer-reviewed studies, evidence & data that shows exclusively homosexual animals are normally found in parallel with most species of sexual animals. Then I’ll say evolution is on your side. This what science is about. And this is what we are talking about here. Scientists have now had plenty of time to dig up the evidence on this important issue.
If it turns out you actually can supply all this – and not just a book – then for all the parades, and street banners, and protests, and political lobbiests, gay TV & movies, petitions, laws, car washes, etc… well… you need a new marketing guy.
Btw: Superstition is about making a connection or link between events or things when none exists. Just because you believe homosexuality has a genetic basis, doesn’t mean it does.
RBG
#128 – RBG,
I did. The link is way back in post #57. Here are some excerpts.
Please RBG, click the link and read a bit. I promise it will be educational. As with most wikipedia entries, the references are well cited. If you question any of them, click through to the study in question.
Here’s the link again so you won’t have to scroll all the way back up to post #57.
Homosexuality in Animals
#128 – RBG,
Of course, if you want the study from the 2-50 million species that include the vast majority of life on the planet, i.e. bacteria, I think you’ll find that we have not studied the sexual relationships of most of them.
I assure you though that all of the bacteria, which make up by far the majority of those species and even the majority of the biomass of the planet, are neither heterosexual nor homosexual.
So, if you care about the norm in reproduction for the planet, it’s called mitosis.
Seriously though, don’t you think arguing from a standpoint of every species on the planet is a bit like trying to study normal sexuality of the universe? Of course we haven’t examined every species. Most researchers are too squeamish to even want to mention homosexuality in animals even if they happen to see it. Note the section on Giraffes in the link in my prior post for an example.
And, how do you expect to have such knowledge of so many species when there are large species that people love to study that have never been observed mating at all, including many cetaceans, especially the larger whales.
In short, don’t be silly. If we’ve observed it in 1500 species, try to find the number of species for which we have done any detailed study of the animals’ sexuality at all. I’m confident that when you find that number 1,500 will be a significant minority. Who knows? It may even be the majority.
#128 – RBG,
I keep re-reading your post and am actually finding it increasingly ridiculous.
And evolution being the amazing adapter that it is, I’m not at all going to be surprised if some examples of what I ask are to be found, somewhere. But what I need are scores of undisputed peer-reviewed studies, evidence & data that shows exclusively homosexual animals are normally found in parallel with most species of sexual animals. Then I’ll say evolution is on your side. This what science is about. And this is what we are talking about here. Scientists have now had plenty of time to dig up the evidence on this important issue.
Perhaps you’d like to set the bar a bit higher. Perhaps the cow really can jump over the moon, better set the bar at Alpha Centauri.
Seriously though, your last line makes an interesting point. You feel that this issue is all-important. I like to bring it up merely because to me it makes such an obvious point. So, yes, I often argue that homosexuality is well within normal animal behavior.
However, even if homosexuality did not exist in 1,500 known species today, how would that really prove that same sex marriage should be illegal?
Remember that no one is hurt by it. There are certainly people at all points along the Kinsey scale world-wide, except in Iran of course.
So, why deny them their rights?
What do you personally gain by oppressing them and disallowing them the opportunity to be happy?
Do you just not want to see happy homosexuals because if you can’t admit your own sexuality then no one else should be able to either?
Is there any other possible reason to want to deny rights to people?
If you are not a miserable unhappy closet homosexual then why would you care who marries whom?
I know I’m taking that old tack of calling homophobes closet homosexuals. However, the logic really makes sense. Why else would you care enough to make the lives of others miserable?
Oh and by the way, search your inner feelings carefully. Perhaps it will help you to know that having a homosexual thought once in a blue moon does not actually make you a homosexual.
And, if it turns out that you are, please by all means, come to terms with it and be happy. If not, then let others be happy. This is important.
The idea is to let people who are not hurting anyone at least have the same chance at happiness that we all want. It’s called the pursuit of happiness. It’s one of our inalienable rights.
Do to others as you would have them do to you.
Would you want your right to marry denied?
#131–Scott==you were doing so well up until that last line. I sure wish there had been some law preventing my ex and me from getting hitched. I’m thinking we should have had to take a class and pass a maturity test or something. Both marriage and divorce are too easy in our society.
BTW–if NO other species had “natural” homosexuality, it wouldn’t make any difference. The evidence is mounting it is “mostly” genetic for human beings. One could say we truly are evolving to love our fellow man.
Mis Scott: I’ll get to your links as soon as I can. But I suspect the test of “exclusively homosexual” as apparently in humans is not being met within your 1,500 species example.
If your few examples prove to be correct, they fall into my expectation, as above, of such evolutionary occurrences. Within all the different species of sexual animals, the probability of finding some examples of such exclusive homosexual behaviour might be high, while the probability of any one particular species exhibiting such behavior is extremely low. Unless a vast scientific cross-section of such standard homosexual behavior has been documented. Nothing here that science doesn’t already routinely accomplish.
It’s certainly nothing presented to me in 4 years of university zoology. Maybe they all just missed this. Maybe I should ask for my money back.
Read again: “…in a wide variety of species of the sexual animals from Earth’s 2-50 million species.” It’s phrased that way only because I didn’t have a handy tally of the number of sexual species. But it is to be a huge number.
If homosexuality did no collateral harm, I would have no problem with it. As it is, behind closed doors, more power to you. My concern is that human heterosexuality is generally an all-consuming human trait. It’s therefore tough enough for growing kids to grapple with this without the mixed implicit and explicit messages of the homosexual lifestyle presented to them as a healthy normal alternative “that may or may not be ‘right’ for them.”
If you believe, as I do, that, under the right circumstances, people can be convinced about anything, then laws and sub-cultures that place homosexuality on an equal footing with heterosexuality are dangerous. That should be self-evident.
Consider the situation where a depressed heterosexual person feels completely bitter and alienated by society – a complete failure in heterosexual relations with commensurate blows to self-esteem… if a homosexual community were to embrace, nurture and give meaning to that person’s life, well, I swear I would become homosexual too.
We know from the myriad absurd religions that people are ready to accept wholeheartedly just about anything. Add to the homosexuality scenario, an overlay of misdirected heterosexuality (dog/leg/hump).
That’s my very general take on things, based upon my observations about how the world works, science and common sense.
RBG
#133 – RBG,
Read again: “…in a wide variety of species of the sexual animals from Earth’s 2-50 million species.” It’s phrased that way only because I didn’t have a handy tally of the number of sexual species. But it is to be a huge number.
Got anything to show that the number of sexually reproducing species is that high? I was under the impression that the numbers you cite are closer to the total number of species on the planet. Of those, the number of sexually reproducing ones rounds to zero percent … to many decimal places.
Further, I think that for practical purposes you may want to limit to vertebrates, which knocks the number down to 35,000ish species. This will avoid having to deal with “normal sexual behavior” like biting the head off of one’s mate during sex (praying mantids) or otherwise killing during sex (black widows). It will also eliminate other “normal sexuality” like earthworms where every member of the species is both male and female.
Don’t worry though, sticking with chordates will still leave us with sea horses where the female deposits the egg in the male who then becomes pregnant. So, plenty of interesting behavior left.
If homosexuality did no collateral harm, I would have no problem with it. As it is, behind closed doors, more power to you. My concern is that human heterosexuality is generally an all-consuming human trait. It’s therefore tough enough for growing kids to grapple with this without the mixed implicit and explicit messages of the homosexual lifestyle presented to them as a healthy normal alternative “that may or may not be ‘right’ for them.”
What??!!? I’m sorry, I think this line of argument is completely and thoroughly ridiculous.
First, as you point out about other species, most members are not exclusively homosexual. However, neither are most members exclusively heterosexual. If a person is mostly heterosexual but has some mild homosexual tendencies, what harm is if for that person to grow up knowing that is normal?
Further, imagine the “collateral harm” we have already been doing for generations to homosexual children.
We tell them in no uncertain terms that homosexuality is wrong or evil. In your example, we might not ever even talk about it, making it subtly but strongly taboo. This leaves children feeling diseased and demented for something that is well within the range of normal human behavior.
So, when thinking about “collateral harm” caused, remember the harm we cause when we don’t talk about homosexuality or when we fail to send the message that it is OK, not better, not worse, just OK.
If you believe, as I do, that, under the right circumstances, people can be convinced about anything,
Perhaps
then laws and sub-cultures that place homosexuality on an equal footing with heterosexuality are dangerous. That should be self-evident.
Nothing self-evident about it. Dangerous how? People can be convinced about a lot of things. They can be convinced homosexuality is evil or damaging, the latter is presumably as you believe. Or they can be taught that it is acceptable and healthy behavior on par with heterosexuality.
I don’t really believe people can be taught to be homosexual or heterosexual.
I think most people manage to find their own sexuality regardless of what they are taught. It is just a matter of how much you want to damage the mind of someone discovering that their feelings may not even be discussed.
If you believe that people can actually be convinced to change their sexuality then how do you explain the existence of homosexuality in repressive homophobic societies? Clearly these children were taught only about heterosexuality and yet still managed to grow up homosexual. How do you think that happens?
No. I think that when people know that their own sexuality is acceptable regardless of what it is, people will just grow up healthier and happier.
Consider the situation where a depressed heterosexual person feels completely bitter and alienated by society – a complete failure in heterosexual relations with commensurate blows to self-esteem… if a homosexual community were to embrace, nurture and give meaning to that person’s life, well, I swear I would become homosexual too.
I think the answer to that is to have a more accepting society, not like the one you present.
However, to consider your own hypothetical case. A person has failed to find happiness as a heterosexual individual and then finds it as a homosexual individual. Um … what exactly was your problem with that again?
To me, your hypothetical person just found happiness. Woo Hoo!!
134 M Scott.
“in a wide variety of species of the sexual animals from Earth’s 2-50 million species.”
Perhaps this is still my bad phrasing. I’m talking about the set of all the sexual animals separated from the bigger set of all animal species.
I am not referring to exclusively their sexual behaviors but simply establishing as a base point the clear overarching evolutionary development that is the fusing of genetic material between individuals. So far we are not talking about anything homosexual.
And then there is that evolutionary pillar which is the need to survive to breed. You seem to think homosexuality has evolved as being necessary for this process. Almost exclusively, the sexual animals show otherwise. But I could be wrong. I’m just waiting for this “required” homosexuality to be proved, as I am Intelligent Design, before I buy in.
“However, neither are most members exclusively heterosexual.”
Yes, I understand, like Ellen Degeneres’s former girl friend. We can see in human sexual behavior and even some of the rest of the animal kingdom, as you note, a range of examples of extreme and not-so-extreme non-standard sexual behaviors… as influenced by an individual’s original heterosexual genetic programming. And also as determined by free-will in humans. And animals too if we are to go with your definition of free-will.
But what I am interested in exploring is the claim of exclusive homosexuality that is the product of genetics from eons of sexual evolution.
I’ve already pointed out that it is reasonable that children growing into sexual maturity can be influenced by what society has to say about sex. And we know this to be true, generally, by the great variety of exhibited human sexual behaviors from polygamy to wife-swapping to bi-curious to bestiality to homosexuality and on. In each situation, to some degree, the practitioners believe what they are doing is quite fine. It is no stretch of the imagination that children can be influenced ( as adults can be) when presented with these sexual concepts regardless of their base genetic heterosexual programming.
But human behavior is a complicated thing and I wouldn’t presume to know all there is to know as to the factors that go into why people are able to over-ride their genotypic sexual programming. Just that they artificially can and that life is more difficult when they do. Thus the laws and culture that support this hurt sexually maturing people.
RBG
#135 – RBG,
134 M Scott.
“in a wide variety of species of the sexual animals from Earth’s 2-50 million species.”
Perhaps this is still my bad phrasing. I’m talking about the set of all the sexual animals separated from the bigger set of all animal species.
I understood that perfectly well. My understanding is that the current estimate is on the order you state, usually the mainstream is expressed as 10 million species. However, that includes bacteria. I do not believe there are millions of sexually reproducing species on the planet. Do you have a link?
And then there is that evolutionary pillar which is the need to survive to breed. You seem to think homosexuality has evolved as being necessary for this process. Almost exclusively, the sexual animals show otherwise. But I could be wrong. I’m just waiting for this “required” homosexuality to be proved, as I am Intelligent Design, before I buy in.
I did not say that homosexuality was necessary for breeding. I said that hundreds of millions of years of evolution did in fact produce a lot of homosexuality. I also stated something that really seems to confuse you.
It’s a fact.
If you can’t explain why evolution supports homosexuality, it doesn’t make the fact go away. It’s all well and good if we can explain things. We like that. We are a story telling species. We like to have explanations. However, sometimes we don’t yet have an explanation. Then we’re left with a fact staring us in the face. You may not like it. But, you can’t sweep it under the rug.
BTW, heres a new one from the Times today.
Same-Sex Parents in Albatross Colony
But what I am interested in exploring is the claim of exclusive homosexuality that is the product of genetics from eons of sexual evolution.
Sorry, only one of us cares about this. If someone is bisexual and falls in love, they should be able to marry. I don’t care which sex the partner is. Why do you?
I’ve already pointed out that it is reasonable that children growing into sexual maturity can be influenced by what society has to say about sex. And we know this to be true, generally, by the great variety of exhibited human sexual behaviors from polygamy to wife-swapping to bi-curious to bestiality to homosexuality and on.
The existence of these behaviors does nothing to suggest that people can be strongly influenced in their sexuality. It merely indicates that people engage in these behaviors.
It is no stretch of the imagination that children can be influenced ( as adults can be) when presented with these sexual concepts regardless of their base genetic heterosexual programming.
Actually, it’s an enormous stretch. I’d suggest that when you make such claims you back them up with peer reviewed articles from psychiatric journals. Personally, I think the statement is pure bullshit.
As you’ve flatly refused to post a single link thus far, I will not expect you to do so now.
But human behavior is a complicated thing and I wouldn’t presume to know all there is to know as to the factors that go into why people are able to over-ride their genotypic sexual programming. Just that they artificially can and that life is more difficult when they do. Thus the laws and culture that support this hurt sexually maturing people.
Um … You’re arguing both sides here at the same time. I’m having a tough time with this. What I read from this is that people are hurt when they attempt to override their own sexuality. So, we should clearly make sure that children know that everything from a Kinsey 1 to a Kinsey 6 is perfectly acceptable. Anything less would seriously hurt sexually maturing people.
You probably didn’t mean to say that. You probably meant to say that it only hurts heterosexual people to attempt to be homosexual.
In reality, this is probably an exceedingly rare occurrence, unlike the difficultly homosexual children face when growing up with the knowledge that homosexuality is considered evil, wrong, or unhealthy.
Next time you want to have a discussion, please try to back up any salient points you are trying to make.
Oh, and yes, go back to your university and get your money back. They have failed to teach you how to do scholarly research on a subject.
#132
> The evidence is mounting it is
> “mostly” genetic for human beings
I have heard differently. Some scientists have postulated that homosexuality might be due to environmental effects during pregnancy that affect the timing of certain protein development. Much of our structure is based on the timing in which the proteins assemble themselves using our DNA. Thus, it may very well be the case that homosexuality is not genetic at all but still outside the confines of choice.
#137–Thomas==I haven’t seen those reports. I have seen Venter talk about how “junk DNA” appears to be greatly involved in sequencing/timing issues. “But” by definition anything that controls the expression of genes or proteins is in fact “genetic.” I don’t know what benefit/change you get by making any such distinction when you objectively admit it is still outside the confines of choice?
Here is where personal experience does help. I can’t recall ever “choosing” to be hetero. I can’t imagine any argument or values that would change my mind. I was made a hetero.
Two great recognitions in life is that everyone else on the planet is just like me. The other is that people are not just like me. Wisdom is fignuring out which rule applies (to what degree?) in any given case.
M. Scott: “I do not believe there are millions of sexually reproducing species on the planet. Do you have a link?”
I couldn’t and didn’t hazard a guess, without research, except to say the number must be very big.
We can infer influence upon sexuality from the power of influence in general upon most human behavior. The fact that men & women have been convinced to engage in so many different types of sexual activities is proof of this. Especially the seeming ease men & women, as evidenced by Anne Heche, can switch their sexuality. So much for the bullshit.
RBG
#139–RBG==you are on a good point. Lesbians by and large still love the little kiddies. Once impregnated by a neanderthal they will still give birth and raise the little kiddie. It does not matter much about the gay leanings of most women as to the survival of the species==their dedication to raising the results does matter.
Its the great dance. Men love women and force sex on them. Women love children and put up with it.
Its not Shakespeare or Freud, but it is evolutionary genetic theory.
#139 – RBG,
Seriously, get your money back. Then after you get the refund check, check out a couple of sites.
http://www.google.com
http://scholar.google.com
You’re never going to win any debate without backing up anything you say. You stated 2 – 50 million. Now you simply state a lot of sexually reproducing species.
How about if we stick to the 35,000ish vertebrates as I suggested somewhere way back there?
And, no. We can’t infer anything. Observation is key. We must actually make a concerted study. I think the whites of your eyes are turning brown now. Give it up.
Just admit you’re a homophobe and same sex marriage creeps you out.
You don’t have a leg to stand on.
>>Just admit you’re a homophobe and same sex
>>marriage creeps you out.
I think that’s what it boils down to in most cases of the anti-gay marriage crew, no matter how much they try to tart the pig up with the lipstick of constitutional law or evolutionary science.
#138
Genetic only implies that which derived from the specific coding in our DNA. If homosexuality were genetic, it would mean that there is a specific DNA sequence that could be altered to make one a heterosexual. However, if there are environmental effects that occur during pregnancy that affect the timing of protein development, then the result is not due to DNA sequencing.
However, your second point is actually where I was trying to go. Whether it is a specific DNA sequence or the timing of protein construction is irrelevant. Fundamentally, it is not a choice and therefore should preclude the government from arbitrarily discriminating based on a natural phenomenon.
#143 – Thomas,
I agree with most of what you said. The only point I would state is that, while I do definitely use evolutionary science to make the case at times, I still strongly feel that even if it turned out to be neither genetic nor physically derived during development, homosexuality hurts no one.
So, why discriminate?
Mis Scott. You don’t seem to understand how it works. Science doesn’t have to prove a negative any more than it is imperative that science must prove Intelligent Design doesn’t exist.
If you think something extraordinary, counter-intuitive exists in nature, you better have solid, extraordinary evidence to back it up. otherwise prove to me ghosts don’t exist. As I say, it sure wasn’t taught in university zoology. But maybe they just missed it.
What you’ll find is that the evidence you seek is so thin or non-existent, it completely explains why such materials are not at the forefront of this debate in our society instead of the usual “gay” penguins (that turn out not to be not-so gay).
I’m not going to take the time provide you with studies showing kids can be influenced by what adults have to say. It’s self-evident to all except the most desperate of people. And no, I’m not going to provide you with double-blind peer-reviewed evidence on that point either.
136 RBG “And then there is that evolutionary pillar which is the need to survive to breed. You seem to think homosexuality has evolved as being necessary for this process.”
MS: “I did not say that homosexuality was necessary for breeding.”
Though certainly my point speaks to “breeding,” the emphasis is actually on “surviving.” Like exclusively homosexual individuals are some kind of “brilliant” fundamental evolutionary development required for 35,000 vertebrate species survival.
“Just admit you’re a homophobe and same sex marriage creeps you out.”
So then it gets down to this little bit of usual “airtight logic” as the foundation to your position, as it always does. The classic bully tactic designed to effectively and conveniently stop the debate. Even if true, it’s really not near enough prove your wishful thinking. I expect you’ll also want a peer reviewed study on that one.
RBG
So. RBG. Are you a homophobe and does the idea of gay marriage creep you out?
Or are you basing your argument solely on evolutionary science and genetics?
#145 – RBG,
What you’ll find is that the evidence you seek is so thin or non-existent, it completely explains why such materials are not at the forefront of this debate in our society instead of the usual “gay” penguins (that turn out not to be not-so gay).
No RBG. Well documented homosexuality in 500 species is not so thin. It’s real evidence. I’m not saying maybe they missed something. I’m saying they found something. You are disputing real scientific findings.
And, you’re disputing them with mere opinion!!
Provide some links dammit. Without a thing to back up your opinions, everything you have said is semantically null.
Do you know what a link is?
147 Misanthropic Scott: As most folks know around here, I am the link king when it comes to argument. In this case logic is sufficient and the onus is on you and your illogical claim.
You always neatly… no, make that hamfistedly, manage to avoid that point. You also like to confuse observations of apparent homosexual behavior as being the case for exclusive homosexuality. By your definition, we’re all zoophiliacs then because dogs hump human legs. Now go find me links that scientifically prove there is no such thing as ghosts.
RBG
>>In this case logic is sufficient and the
>>onus is on you and your illogical claim.
Heh heh. Tee hee. I guess that means you can’t find any links, hm?
Just fess up. Confession is good for the soul. You’re a homophobe, and gay marriage creeps you out.
I KNEW it!
#148 – RBG,
You said:
I say: Hmm… Thought I heard something. But, there was nothing there.
Fruit Flies can be gay:
http://www.skeptictank.org/gaygene.htm
And here’s one for gay animals all over the place==kinda humorous bent and very interesting on this subject:
http://tinyurl.com/4by7ev
And here’s a reference to the thought I had earlier and can’t find more on point===it may be that the gene complex that codes for homosexuality may also have a side benefit of making female offspring more fertile. That Darwinian advantage that seems to be a conflict is not.
http://tinyurl.com/4pzrqx