Law: How is gay different than (_blank_)?

[Michaelangelica]

So we are now looking at how to restrict social behavior of specific types?

 

Can we add the behavior of wearing those pants that hang down around the knees?? I think that behavior should be restricted as well;)

and people-who-walk-backwards in supermarkets. Burning at the stake preferably.

 

We really don't know much about the social history of 'gayness' as it has been such a taboo topic for so long. (do we?)I have my doubts about the British Navy for example. From about the 15c to 20C it was well known for it's rum and buggery. It was a long journey from UK to Australia after all.

 

A lot of UK sexuality was repressed during the Victorian era and emerged in many strange ways. One of them was professed homophobia even in the legal system. (Poor old, genius Noel Coward etc -see the, more recent, alan turing thread too).

The aristocracy carried on fornicating with anything that moved and left the emerging middle classes to their phobias & nurotisisms (that eventually gave us psychoanalysis! -and Woody Allen movies).

 

I am sure I could have been gay if I had had a different set of life experiences.I am glad I didn't because for many it is a hard and lonely life. Some gay friend have suffered terribly with loss with the Aids epidemic.

It was not on my radar as I was growing up. I was just dumb and unobservant perhaps. Now it seems trendy to be gay or "bi" Hopefully in countries like Australia things are getting better; but there is still bigotry in the Church and some Educational Institutions for example.

I don't think I would like to be a gay Arab

 

The Gay Mardi Gras in Sydney is now a fun event with most of Sydney turning out for it. But when it first started the marchers were beaten, arrested, humiliated and harassed by the police (Now the gay police march!).

 

I don't think you need to exhibit stereotypical gay behaviour to be gay. (Most of my gay friends don't have limp wrists)

Look at all the many Macho actors who have been gay.

 

Sorry this post may seem disjointed, I ment it to be more concise. I hope you can follow my disjointed ramblings about a topic I probably really know nothing about.

[TheFaithfulStone]

I fail to see what that has to with the law, regardless of the validity of your claim. I think it's a foil for homophobia.

 

Sic'em Fang.

 

tfs

[HydrogenBond]

So-called homophobia has been around as long as gays. Isn't it possible that this behavior is as natural or unnatural as homosexuality? These may be two sides of the same coin or a natural/unnatural instinct that prevents the number of gays from exceeding a natural limit. The homophobes are never researched to see if this is genetic based like gay. It is just assumed to be psychological and never investigated further. I beleive that both operate by the same parameters. If culture allows and glorifies homophobic behavior their numbers would rise because socially created homophobes would increase in number.

 

Here is an irony, if all gays were removed from the picture (hypothetically, not in reality) the homophobes would disappear. On the other hand, if all the homophobes are removed (hypothetically) the gays would not disappear but would increase in number.

 

The same can be said for deer and wolves. If the wolves disappear the deer population will increase until it becomes decimated by social disease. But if the deer population disappears the wolves will decrease in number. The homophobes are the predictors and the queer are the deer. If the numbers are in natural balance the deer evolve by natural selection. This may explain why many gays are special people; good looks, intelligent, sensitive, outgoing, creative, etc. Without the wolves regression in the herd may occur as they become diluted by socially created gays.

[InfiniteNow]

The homophobes are never researched to see if this is genetic based like gay. It is just assumed to be psychological and never investigated further.

Actually, it has been researched in terms of inheritance of hatred and discrimination. The studies tend to reveal that you're not born hating, but it's taught. Also, I'm not sure who makes assumptions such as those you offered above, or what you propose would be a factor in one's hatred and bigotry beside their psychology...

[Igby]

Here is an irony, if all gays were removed from the picture (hypothetically, not in reality) the homophobes would disappear. On the other hand, if all the homophobes are removed (hypothetically) the gays would not disappear but would increase in number.

 

That's totally fallacious. Homosexuality is not a weed which has to be burnt-off to be kept in check. This "natural limit" you speak of is ridiculous. Homophobia, certainly, is subject to cultural acceptance. Out homosexuality may also be; there weren't nearly as many gay pride parades when Oscar Wilde was prancing about. But homosexuality itself is not a function of social acceptibility.

[TheFaithfulStone]

Homosexuality is not a weed which has to be burnt-off to be kept in check. This "natural limit" you speak of is ridiculous.

 

I like you Igby.

 

Give'em hell.

 

It occurs to me I should do something besides egg you on - so other than telling HB that "gayness" is not "unnatural" because it occurs pretty much at all levels of the animal kingdom, but that beat downs of gay-acting animals are pretty much specific to homo sapiens

 

TFS

[erich]

Yes, Igby...............here in Virginia, I get to vote against an amendment so heinously immoral that it would allow the tearing apart of committed, loving relationships with the denial of the basic rights that are self evident.

 

The right says gay marriage is "un-natural", ..........................well they should read this:

 

 

http://www.world-science.net/othernews/061024_gay-animals.htm

 

 

Let's all go out and have "dominance behavior" :cup:

[TheBigDog]

Yes, Igby...............here in Virginia, I get to vote against an amendment so heinously immoral that it would allow the tearing apart of committed, loving relationships with the denial of the basic rights that are self evident.

 

The right says gay marriage is "un-natural", ..........................well they should read this:

 

 

http://www.world-science.net/othernews/061024_gay-animals.htm

 

 

Let's all go out and have "dominance behavior" :cup:

Thanks. Next time I need justification for my behavior I can use your example and just reach into the animal kingdom. Pardon me while I fling my feces at passers by. Perfectly normal and acceptable.

 

Bill (please note, this is a condemnation of the argument)

[Michaelangelica]

I like you Igby.

 

Give'em hell.

 

It occurs to me I should do something besides egg you on - so other than telling HB that "gayness" is not "unnatural" because it occurs pretty much at all levels of the animal kingdom, but that beat downs of gay-acting animals are pretty much specific to homo sapiens

 

TFS

No I have had (not in the biblical sense) a homosexual duck ('Randy') and dog (liked legs).

 

Seriously, I saw a TV programme about a variety of monkeys who spend much of their day copulating with eveyrbody else in the group, males, females, juveniles. You name the combination they had it!

The TV programme narrator suggested it was a way for the group to bond.

 

Bonding may be an important aspect of sexual behaviour.

[TheFaithfulStone]

Thanks. Next time I need justification for my behavior I can use your example and just reach into the animal kingdom. Pardon me while I fling my feces at passers by. Perfectly normal and acceptable.

 

Bill (please note, this is a condemnation of the argument)

 

That's actually pretty irrelevant. The animal examples address the argument that homosexuality is "unnatural." The judgement of whether it's acceptable is actually a separate issue - but "unnatural" can no longer be used as a reason why it SHOULD be unacceptable.

 

I doubt anyone would accuse you of behaving "unnaturally" were you throw your feces at passers by. This is unacceptable not because it's "not natural" but because it's unsanitary, and people don't like to get poop on them.

 

TFS

[Turtle]

Many of our laws were changed during the 20th century to eliminate discrimination by gender, ethnicity, and religion. How is being homosexual any different, and should laws be allowed to discriminate against this group, but not others?

 

Mmmmm....I'm not sure what 20th century laws dealt with religious discrimination, however it is the religious folk who want to legislate against sexual practices. Me thinks they protesteth too much:

 

The Rev. Ted Haggard, the former president of the National Association of Evangelicals and one of the nation’s most influential Christian leaders, has conceded that some of the accusations that led him to resign are true, a church official said today.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/03/us/04pastorcnd.html?hp&ex=1162616400&en=808cf25dcc9ce1a9&ei=5094&partner=homepage

 

Just say no to any religious justification for any legislation.:phones:

[TheBigDog]

That's actually pretty irrelevant. The animal examples address the argument that homosexuality is "unnatural." The judgement of whether it's acceptable is actually a separate issue - but "unnatural" can no longer be used as a reason why it SHOULD be unacceptable.

 

I doubt anyone would accuse you of behaving "unnaturally" were you throw your feces at passers by. This is unacceptable not because it's "not natural" but because it's unsanitary, and people don't like to get poop on them.

 

TFS

What other behaviors that happen "naturally" in nature should we accept on that basis alone? Hampsters eat their young. Monkeys engage in sex across ages, sexes and family lines. Pigs wallow in their own filth. Using animal behavior as a justification for human behavior is wrong. It is only being done here because it fits the current agenda. How about violent territorialism in male lions as justification for human violence and murder?

 

Bill

[Turtle]

Then we have this:

 

The probability of a man being gay rises the more older brothers he has, a finding that adds weight to the idea sexual orientation could be influenced in the womb.

 

http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2006/06/26/brothers-gay.html

 

[sardonicComment]Let's pass a law forbiding more than 1 son so we get rid of the queers, eh!?[/sardonicComment]:phones:

[Southtown]

Using animal behavior as a justification for human behavior is wrong.

Or more specifically, *ahem* counter-intelligent.

[Edella]

Using animal behavior as a justification for human behavior is wrong.

Nowhere did TFS say this is justification for homosexuality! As a matter of fact, he stated exactly what he was trying to show:

The animal examples address the argument that homosexuality is "unnatural." The judgment of whether it's acceptable is actually a separate issue - but "unnatural" can no longer be used as a reason why it SHOULD be unacceptable.

TFS argument was simply countering one specific view of homosexuality ,he even states that acceptability is a separate issue. :phones:

[InfiniteNow]

That seems to be the issue here. You associate homosexuality with the following:

 

Hampsters eat their young. Monkeys engage in sex across ages, sexes and family lines. Pigs wallow in their own filth... as justification for human violence and murder?

 

Have you ever loved a brother? A friend? What if that love were just a little bit more intense? Would it then be akin to hampsters eating their young, monkeys throwing ****, or murder?

 

Using animal behavior as a justification for human behavior is wrong.

Humans are animal. Saying we're not is unjustified self-reiforcing arrogance.

 

 

I sure hope you're not referring to people with darker skin when you refer to monkeys above...

 

 

Cheers. :phones:

[TheFaithfulStone]

What other behaviors that happen "naturally" in nature should we accept on that basis alone?

 

Don't think I said that just because monkeys do it makes it okay. I just said that all other animals do it, so it's obviously not unnatural.

 

How about violent territorialism in male lions as justification for human violence and murder?

 

I wouldn't consider violence and territorialism in humans "unnatural."

 

What I'm saying is that saying "homosexuality is unnatural and therefore undesirable" is untrue. Homosexuality is NOT unnatural. Whether or not it's desirable is another matter.

 

TFS