The Gay Fray

Ah .... As it stands now, we're above the average for non-hetero representation. Taken altogether, nearly a quarter of the respondents are at least theoretically willing to engage in intimate contact with their own sex. And as single figures go, political assertions tend to put the number of homosexuals at 10% or below. At 11.23%, we're slightly more gay than the rest of society.

Some would suggest that the 10% figure applies to that ever-growing string of letters now known as LGBTQ. (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer; I have no idea what the purpose of including that last is.) By that measure, we're well above the norm.

Additionally, we must at least acknowledge a number that remains theoretic: re-votes. Over time, we've seen a greater number and proportion of heterosexuals leave the site and register under a new name. If these people all voted again, it would skew the numbers toward heterosexuals.

And the numbers have been normalizing in recent times. For the first couple years, the result suggested Sciforums was exceptionally gay compared to the rest of society, with gay and bisexual combined totals surpassing a third of the respondents. As I recall, even after a considerable period, the bisexual number managed to cap out over twenty percent.

Part of me regrets allowing the respondents to stay in the closet, but the vote also strikes me as the sort some people would want to keep quiet.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That's about 2x the number of gays in the general population and about 10x the number of bi's.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Uruguay!

Uruguay!
Say what?

That's right. Uruguay.

Same-sex couples in Uruguay will be able to adopt children following the approval of a controversial bill by the country's senate.

The move means Uruguay becomes the first Latin American country to allow gay couples the chance to adopt.

Some 17 of 23 senators voted in favour of the new legislation, AFP reports.
The change - opposed by the Catholic Church - is the latest in a series of liberalising measures supported by left-wing President Tabare Vazquez.

The archbishop of Montevideo, Nicolas Cotugno, said before the vote that it would be a "serious error to accept the adoption of children by homosexual couples".

"It's not about religion, philosophy or sociology. It's something which is mainly about the respect of human nature itself," he said in a statement quoted by AFP.

Under the new law, the power to make decisions on adoptions shifts from judges to the national Institute of Children and Adolescents.

(BBC News)​

Uruguay has an interesting history in terms of civil rights, apparently. According to the BBC, it was the first country in the region to recognize divorce, and also a regional leader in women's suffrage.

To the other, it recently introduced a specific ban on homosexuals in military service, and leftist President Tabare Vasquez not only vetoed a law passed by the Parliament last year to legalize abortion, he even resigned from the Socialist Party.

An interesting mix for Uruguay's first left-wing president.
____________________

Notes:

"Uruguay allows same-sex adoption". BBC News. September 9, 2009. BBC.co.uk. September 9, 2009. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8247540.stm

McDermott, Jeremy. "Uruguay's President Tabare Vazquez resigns from Socialist party over abortion vote". Telegraph. December 5, 2008. Telegraph.co.uk. September 9, 2008. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...-from-Socialist-party-over-abortion-vote.html

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yay!!! I can finally move to Uruguay and adopt that little Chinese baby I always wanted!

~String

 

Somewhere in Middle America

Since they oppose gay marriage, the one thing to do is keep them married to each other.

Okay, okay, so the paradox isn't so naked. It does make sense; how can you grant a divorce if you don't recognize the marriage?

An Indiana judge has turned down a divorce request from two women married in Canada, ruling that state law doesn’t give courts the authority to dissolve same-sex marriages.

Larissa Chism and Tara Ranzy lived in Pennsylvania at the time of their 2005 marriage but had since moved to South Bend. Ranzy asked an Indianapolis attorney to handle the divorce that involved no children.

(Southern Voice)​

To the other, though, this might be the sort of question that leads to a DoMA showdown. In all likelihood, the DoMA fight will probably have to originate with a same-sex marriage from another state instead of another country, but as gay marriages are legal in Canada, Marion County and the State of Indiana find themselves bearing awkward exposure to the Equal Protection Clause. The way out, of course, is for Marion County to refuse to recognize any marriage from Canada, or any other nation that accepts same-sex marriages.

Not likely to happen, of course.

Ah, Middle America. For some reason, a cheap lyric keeps running through my mind: "I think you better turn your ticket in and get your money back at the door."
____________________

Notes:

Southern Voice of Atlanta. "Indiana court rejects same-sex divorce". September 18, 2009. SoVo.com. September 21, 2009. http://www.sovo.com/2009/9-18/news/national/10626.cfm

 

tiassa though i surport the clause used that way it DOES expose an unpleasent problem. What happens if a couple (or even just one of the couple) is forced into a marriage they dont want and then flees to the US. Would the courts say "the marriage is binding" or desolve it because it breaches consent rules?

This is oviously unlikly to be an issue with westen countries but some countries DO still surport arragened marriages

 

Annulment

Once coercion is reasonably established, nearly any family law court in the U.S. would annul the marriage. However, that issue is limited, as I understand it, to citizens. I could be wrong, of course, but there is probably a reason coerced spouses aren't fleeing to U.S. embassies for asylum in large numbers.

 

see this is the problem i have with any form of bill of rights which ISNT an act of parliment. An act can be changed if nessary, further more it can be made binding on the crown and all other acts so that IF its nessary to change it the debate is wide spread through the populas as well as parliment. Done this way a goverment knows that to change it incorectly and without wide spread surport means anialation at the next election.

The problem with this sort of system is that oviously you cant use equal protection to force gay rights but by the same token you cant use free speach to stop legitimate restrictions on say tabacoo advertising or harrasment.

 

In other words, we're still working on it

Some would suggest the Constitution was specifically designed to paralyze government.

Remember that our Bill of Rights is an anti-identification. Even the Ninth and Tenth Amendments—often considered confounding for their vagary—can be framed as a response to the behavior of the Crown.

Freedom was the battle cry, but it's not really what this country was founded for. Rather, it was mostly about greed. How else could we make the complaints we made against the Crown and end up with the Three-Fifths Rule?

No, really. That one shattered the Declaration of Independence. We might have won the actual war, but we forfeit the Revolution itself the day we passed that one.

Consider that American soldiers marching into battle often heard their officers shouting passages from Thomas Paine. And then consider that two hundred thirty-three years later, Paine is still too "liberal" for most Americans.

We're still catching up to our American idyll because nobody really believed it from the outset. Later generations bought into it. Hell, even my generation did. And now that people are infected with the notion, it's a long slow climb to the shining city on the hill.

 

The should move to New York for their divorce.
http://divorce.clementlaw.com/2009/03/articles/divorce/same-sex-divorce-granted/

 

At least them east coast elitists can figure out the obvious

Well, I'll be damned. Take that, Indiana. Or ... something.

Thank ye, sir.

 

Can't imagine actually wanting to live in Indiana any way.

 

Flatter than the Ferguson girl

There are a number of places I can't figure out why I'd ever want to live there. And yes, Indiana is on the list, but for matters of topography. Living in the Puget Sound region, I'm accustomed to not being able to see very far before my view is obstructed by hills or mountains.

Put me in the midwest and I'd go stark raving bonkers fairly quickly. Hell, just driving through the east half of the state, even though I can still see the mountains, is really trippy. The I-5 corridor through the Willamette Valley between Portland and Salem, Oregon, is too flat and wide for my general tastes. At least when I lived in Salem, I was north and west of the river, living on a hill, and having to drive windy roads bordered by trees and rock in order to get anywhere. But Salem proper is just creepy flat. Looking to the east from my mother's living room—at least the part of the view that hasn't been blocked by illegal property development—you see over the city, where the tallest buildings are the Willamette Title (I guess it's called Capitol Center, now), the old Church, and the capitol. (With only those two exceptions—I believe as a grandfather clause—nothing is allowed to be taller than the capitol building.) And it's just this sparse, pathetic looking city that spreads out below. On clear nights I can follow the traffic lights all the way across town to Lancaster. I mean, sure, it's not huge, or anything, estimated population 154,000+. But it sometimes feels like being in Ellensburg, Washington, which is about a tenth the size. I can't describe that place unless you've been there, in which case there's no need.

Anyway, how I ramble.

 

I put heterosexual.
however, in theory I am bisexual.
my philosophy on this matter is as follows:
"A mouth is a mouth, a hole is a hole."

 

I put bisexual, though I generally practice heterosexuality. I have had homosexual relationships. Eh. They weren't that different from heterosexual relationships, except I tend towards being the bottom.

I prefer women slightly more for one reason...

They tend to be softer.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Lived in Tacoma for a while. Got to see Mt St Helens blow first up close from the ground and next from a jet in the air.

 

I had that theory, but I found in pratice it just didn't work out like that for me. Men smell wrong and its hard to avoid that even in the dark.

 

i voted "other" because i agree with amark "a mouth is a mouth, a hole is a hole". when i look at women and men i see those that are attractive and aren't attractive and those determinations have nothing to do with their gender. i think that "sexuality" is a bunch of hoopla. penis + vagina = sex. that's it. anything else is just stupid romanticism. in regards to women, i see no benefit at all of getting all worked up via some form of "assisted masturbation", only to have no penis around. in regards to men "a hole is a hole" is not necessarily the case. i think it's pretty obvious that penises don't belong in assholes. at the very least it's bacterially challenged.

 

Implications

How do I put this gently? I'm sorry, but I'm not really sure I can.

If a man were to hold you down and force his erect penis into your asshole, would you argue he should not be charged with rape? See, there's a lot of, shall we say, "misguided" legislators and prosecutors out there who would charge him with rape. But rape is sexual intercourse against one's will. And as it stands right now, one can be charged with sexual assault or rape if they force their penis down your throat or into your asshole.

I recognize it's not the most elegant question, but I'm trying to figure the implications of your standard.

Also, where does love figure into it? I don't wish to take you wrongly here, but that statement about stupid romanticism, and the idea of "getting all worked up via some form of 'assisted masturbation'" seems to discount the state of love and trust that draws people together to build family units together. I mean, you're not really saying homosexuals can't love one another, right? But, then, what are you saying, as such?

• • •​

My father and I were out sailing together on Lake Tapps during, I believe, the July 7, 1980 eruption, and were so taken in by the event we managed to actually capsize the boat.

 

All I am saying I think things were better when the closet doors were closed.