The Gay Fray

I'm biologically destined for soul mate? Efcdrf

People are slow. So are you, destined for soul mate. Think, will it turn out good vs. evil, and straight and gay? My partner, a woman will defiantly have the psychology to woman on woman sex. Or, straight single sex? Idk about that.

Does true love exist? Sure, it gives us our colors. Who might be evil? Be honest!

If evil nature, loving nature. Jesus :tempted:

To prove heavenly mate, someone claim evil! You know, baby. I believe with gay people, this will punch your ticket for sure. The sex I have indoctrinated you on a universal scale where we exist in unison me with women for days, then my buddy took all the gay men. How about it? Why gay? Must be natures! No greys!

Gay is okay. FAITH! Or just straight singles? Sounds dry.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Would sex evolve merely by social aspects like who is readily avliable, or by natures; kindness, genius, etc?

I see how male on male is a thing to evolve to, moreover just to complete a biological scale.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Surprised the real "James Randi" has come out of the closet at the age of 81. Guess he was waiting for family to die off?

[video=youtube;5QLt6EO3k28]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5QLt6EO3k28[/video]

I know it's not exactly science news, but given he is a head skeptic and well known it is interesting.

Are all skeptics ....? No.. Likely not. (sorry. Had to.. lol )

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Humans have choice, but not all choices are natural. I am in favor of individual choice, but I am also in favor of defining natural so when people make choices they are aware there is a natural zero point. Without knowledge of a natural zero point, it is easy to get unnatural and not even know it. Natural is not about opinion or politics, but cause and effect.

I define natural by looking at general trends in nature, instead of specifics. Natural does not need artificial propping. I can choose to eat rocks but unless there is medical propping helping me, this behavior will cause long term problems. Therefore although it is a choice, it is not a natural choice. Natural choices, like in nature, are self sustaining all by themselves, since nature does not have medical mops. Evolution picks what works, all by itself; natural selection.

Could homosexual behavior sustain itself without any artificial propping? This is the natural litmus test. I am still for choice but I am also defining the natural zero point. When the closet was opened in the 1980's, AIDS took the life of many gay men in disproportion to the general population. If it was not for artificial medical propping, the gay population would have been concentrated. Natural was not cooperating with this choice. That choice required artificial prosthesis.

Again I am not making a value judgement, like the current cultural bias that promotes anything as natural. I am only comparing to natural that needs no mops. I still believe in choice, but I am also trying to define natural.

Much of unnatural human behavior is sustainable, within culture, since when culture is set up analogous to keeping animals in the zoo. We can simulate natural for audience viewing, but this requires a lot of work behind the scenes, using zoo keepers not found in nature. The zoo keepers are needed to compensate for the lack of natural conditions and the problems that will arise. If we did an experiment and stopped the zoo keepers, only natural would be left standing. The unnatural would suffer a lot of attrition.

We have choices but culture should not call zoo animals, natural. This does not allow people who make choices, have a sense of what constitutes a rational natural baseline. If that line was taught, I would have no problem with any human choice. But a consistent natural baseline may not be taught, since a good zoo keeper marketing does not benefit by too much truth. Human zoo Keeping is a multi-billion dollar industry that benefits by no tangible baseline.

The current science likes to compare natural human behavior to apes, since genetics indicates apes are put closest genetic relatives. This is not a bad inference, but what separates humans from apes is choice. That wild card is very powerful. This is why I don't try to look at specifics since many of the ape specifics need human zoo keepers; STD's. I would be for natural selection where we let nature take its course and maybe a few would evolve that need no zoo keepers.

 

So what you're essentially saying is that because gay men had an AIDS epidemic in the 1980s, homosexuality is not natural? Then how do you explain that there have been no cases--as in, zero--of female-to-female transmission of HIV? Clearly this isn't nature saying "Oops! Homosexuality is bad," rather it is endemic of the closeted culture gay men were forced into. Actually, this might be one of those "mop" cases you so clumsily refer to, except not in the direction you were thinking; gay men wouldn't have had to die in such great numbers if society had reacted with such hostility to their natural inclinations, because they wouldn't have been forced into this anonymous subculture. In this case, it was society propping up the unnatural illusion that gay sex is somehow immoral.

Of course, the fallacy here is that presence of an STD is a sort of biological punishment for unnatural behavior. This is an absurd non-sequitur and wholly untrue.

 

I was not trying to single out gay men. In current times, 30 years after than dark time, young gay males still have a disproportionately high level of AIDS. The young gay male is thinking natural (was taught) ,but has to learn he needs to abide by zoo keeper rules. Condoms are not found in nature, so natural will not think this is needed. What would happen if all gays stopped using condoms, to simulate natural, which has no condoms? Lesbians don't need the same prosthesis and would be closer to the natural baseline.

You want to call gay behavior natural, but I call it a valid choice that needs a zoo keeper, since it is outside the line. Say young gay males accepted they needed the zoo keeper, they would not pretend natural, but would protect themselves. This saves lives.

Science is based on cause and effect. You can't get STD's playing monopoly. It occurs under specific conditions and once obtained is not conducive to good health. Back in the ancient times, they did not have all the modern science mops. They had essentially no zookeepers. If someone put themselves in the zoo cage, with no zoo keepers, the cause and effect would not be pretty.

The ancients saved lives using word mops, before the fact. In modern times, we save lives, with medicine mops after the fact. The latter is more hidden from view; zoo keepers get to work at night when the crowd is not there to see. The former had the zoo keepers in your face so people could not hide from the baseline in their minds.

Liberal indoctrination is not based on cause and effect so up can appear down.

 

You wouldn't believe

Heterosexual Irresponsibility?
Apparently, this is not a joke

I think back to an old Doonesbury, when Joanie was rejected by a particular law school, and the children encourage her to keep the faith, singing, "You gotta belieeeeeeve!"

Except this time the refrain is different: You wouldn't belieeeeeeve ...

... except ...

... well ... er ... ah ... right.

Marriage should be limited to unions of a man and a woman because they alone can "produce unplanned and unintended offspring," opponents of gay marriage have told the Supreme Court.

By contrast, when same-sex couples decide to have children, "substantial advance planning is required," said Paul D. Clement, a lawyer for House Republicans.

This unusual defense of traditional marriage was set out last week in a pair of opening legal briefs in the two gay marriage cases to be decided by the Supreme Court this spring ....

.... Conservative attorneys did not argue that gays or lesbians engaged in "immoral" behavior or lifestyles. Instead they emphasized what they called the "very real threat" to society posed by opposite-sex couples when they are not bound by the strictures of marriage.

The traditional marriage laws "reflect a unique social difficulty with opposite-sex couples that is not present with same-sex couples — namely, the undeniable and distinct tendency of opposite-sex relationships to produce unplanned and unintended pregnancies," wrote Clement, a solicitor general under President George W. Bush. "Unintended children produced by opposite-sex relationships and raised out-of-wedlock would pose a burden on society."

"It is plainly reasonable for California to maintain a unique institution [referring to marriage] to address the unique challenges posed by the unique procreative potential of sexual relationships between men and women," argued Washington attorney Charles J. Cooper, representing the defenders of Proposition 8. Same-sex couples need not be included in the definition of marriage, he said, because they "don't present a threat of irresponsible procreation."

(Savage)​

Apparently, this is not a joke.

No, really.

The "threat of irresponsible procreation" is apparently a seriously-intended argument put forth by the taxpayer-funded counsel for BLAG's Republican-sponsored heterosupremacist advocacy. Because heterosexuals pose a "very real threat" to American society, homosexuals should not be allowed to marry one another.

No ... really. That's an argument put forward by the so-called Bipartisan Legislative Advisory Group, which has spent three million dollars of taxpayer money advocating for DoMA despite Democratic objections.

And I confess, this particular tack was not one I ever would have imagined.
____________________

Notes:

Savage, David G. "Gay marriage opponents take unusual tack with Supreme Court". Los Angeles Times. January 26, 2013. LATimes.com. January 29, 2013. http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-gay-marry-court-20130127,0,6421506.story

Rosenthal, Andrew. "G.O.P. Wastes Taxpayer Dollars". Taking Note. January 15, 2013. TakingNote.Blogs.NYTimes.com. January 29, 2013. http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/15/g-o-p-wastes-taxpayer-dollars/

 

A common plight among Homosexual partners is that unless specified in writing a gay partner has no right to visit their "friend" in a Hospital if they are sick, and are often barred by family when possible. Assets left at the time of death also can be claimed by the family and an elderly gay person may lose their home.

As a youngster I thought the more gay men the better as it would leave more women for me. I still think that is a good way to view it, and although I avoid imagining what may occur inside their homes think many gay couples are funny.

Marriage is not necessary as these obstacles can be overcome by arrangements done via a lawyer, but I see no harm in it. Why do people even care unless they are busybodies poking their noses into other peoples business.

 

But it's a cultural effect, not a biological one. The reason there are higher instances of HIV/AIDS among gay men is because there's less use of condoms among gay men than there is among heterosexual men.

You can call it whatever you want, but your argument for what makes it unnatural is bogus. What you're really talking about is promiscuity. That's the behavior that needs protection.

I don't know what point you're driving at. If you're trying to say ancient man had less sexually-transmitted diseases, or were somehow less promiscuous, you're only fooling yourself. Homosexuality and promiscuity has existed since the dawn of civilization. Otherwise, ancient religions wouldn't have been so focused on curbing it. (which they were ultimately unsuccessful at)

This is literally gibberish. Homosexual men don't get AIDS at a greater rate because they're gay, they get it because they don't use protection as often as they should. Of course, if you want to talk sheer numbers, there are more straight men and women with HIV/AIDS than gay men and women, something your warped, bigoted worldview can't explain away. (which is why you ignored the point about condoms in the first place)

 

Role Models

Role Models
Wait ... what? Hockey?!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Role Models: Cory Oskam (r.) shares the ice with his namesake, Cory Schneider,
at Rogers Arena in Vancouver, British Columbia on January 23, 2013.​

Hockey is very nearly a religion in Canada, so it is no surprise to see young skaters join their favorite teams before NHL games in the Great White North. But I'm blown away by the courageous coolness that occurred before the Vancouver Canucks hosted the Calgary Flames last week:

For starters, Anneke is now Cory, a 16-year-old male currently blissfully residing on cloud nine after sharing the ice at Rogers Arena with Vancouver Canucks goaltender Cory Schneider.

Yes, the most recent chapter to Cory's story had him standing beside his hero, after whom he renamed himself upon making the transition to become male, as part of Minor Hockey Week when the Canucks hosted the Calgary Flames on January 23rd.

Cory, who began taking hormone blockers at age nine to suppress female puberty and the development of secondary sex characteristics, is a goaltender for Britannia Hockey Academy and a C1 team in Ridge Meadows, and for many of his teammates reading this, surprise!

While many of you think you know Cory, you now truly know Cory, who was Anneke, but was never truly happy as female. It's been a long journey for Anneke/Cory, one filled with, astonishingly, more ups than downs thanks in large part to how understanding and accepting friends, family and Brittania Secondary School have been.

(Jory)​

While surgery is still on the horizon, Cory began testosterone therapy a year and a half ago. "I went into high school not who I am, but being in grade 10 now I feel very much like part of the high school," he explained. "I felt like an outsider, now I have a great support system and a great group of friends, which I've never had before. Life is great."

For Cory Oskam, the new name came from his mother's suggestion, after he attempted to control his growing collection of trading cards by focusing on a favorite player: "Then I opened a pack of cards and pulled a really sick Cory Schneider card. It just clicked; I needed to start collecting him."

As an advocate on issues of homophobia, transphobia, bullying, intersectional violence, and discrimination in schools, Cory is a role model in the community and speaks frequently at events. He was preparing to give a talk at the Dare to Stand Out Vancouver conference on January 21st when his mom dropped the bomb about skating with Schneider and the Canucks. He somehow made it through the presentation and didn't keel over from anticipation before arriving at Rogers Arena.

The experience is all a blur for Cory now. He remembers the thrill of skating onto the ice, meeting Schneider and standing beside him for 'O Canada'. That's about it. He won't soon be forgetting the surprise of meeting Schneider post-game though; Cory, who was wearing an old pair of Schneider's pads he purchased at a Canucks equipment sale, got them autographed and they're now retired in his room.​

This is ineffably cool.

Really, I didn't think anything could top the Wenatchee Wild "blind" protest last weekend. And then this came across my news feed.
____________________

Notes:

Jory, Derek. "Up, up and away". Vancouver Canucks. January 29, 2013. Canucks.NHL.com. January 30, 2013. http://canucks.nhl.com/club/news.htm?id=653098

Wyshynski, Greg. "Hockey coach ejected for mimicking blind man to mock referees in Wenatchee Wild game". Puck Daddy. January 28, 2013. Sports.Yahoo.com. January 30, 2013. http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nhl-p...g-blind-man-mock-referees-051736511--nhl.html

 

The litmus test I am defining simply says natural only requires the barebones found in nature. Natural does not need or use synthetic prosthesis made in factories and marketed on TV. The young gay male is trying to be natural (natural does not use condoms). However, this aspect of gay behavior needs artificial precautions not found in nature. This is also true of heterosexuals.

If I applied this litmus test; only what is found in nature is natural, to a young gay virgin, he would be defined as natural since his basic behavior does not need any artificial support. It is part of the natural human range of the human personality. However, there is a line in the sand, where artificial prosthesis is needed to avoid natural backlash. The litmus test is not all or not for a demographics. Some aspects of gay would be defined as natural, but others aspects are not.

I am for choice, since humans have the capacity to make choices. I do not understand what is wrong with defining natural guidelines that have an objective standard that can be independently define, even by common sense?

 

If that is the criterion then heterosexual sex is not natural either, since a wide variety of STD's can be transmitted via unprotected sex between men and women. (And indeed killed a lot of people before antibiotics and condoms.)

 

Dog Days of Tennessee

Ah, Tennessee ....
Is there any limit to stupidity?

Say what you will about animal shelters executing the animals in their care; up here in the Pacific Northwest, shelters with no-kill policies are having all manner of headache about the logistical complications of their efforts.

And say what you will about the idea that pit bulls are inherently dangerous; this one is not pure pit-bull, and the death sentence he faces in an hour, if not adopted, has nothing to do with violence.

Rather, the dog's human companion has rejected him because the human believes the dog is gay.

A dog is set to be put to death in Tennessee today after his owner abandoned him because he thought he was gay.

The pitbull-type hound is currently languishing in an overcrowded animal shelter in Jackson but is due to be put this afternoon down unless a new owner can be found at the last minute.

According to the owner of the shelter, the dog's master noticed him 'hunched over' another male dog, which led him to assume he was gay.

While dogs are known to occasionally display homosexual behaviour, animal experts say a male dog mounting another male dog is not a sign of sexual orientation but rather a sign of dominance ....

.... While a male dog mounting another male dog is not considered conclusive evidence of homosexuality, biologists have recorded same-sex sexual activity in more than 450 species including flamingos, bison, beetles and warthogs.

A 2010 study of Alaskan Albatrosses found that a third of the pairs actually consisted of two females. Research also shows around a fifth of all king penguin couples kept in captivity are gay.

(Miller)​

A friend of mine, a retired therapeutic psychologist, has seen his pets over the years, both cat and dog, display behavior in which they appear to gratify themselves on other animals they just killed. Yet I've never heard of anyone abandoning their pet because it is a necrophiliac.

And there is the common trope about a dog "humping your leg". Sure, people find the behavior unsettling, but I've never heard of someone abandoning their dog because it is a bestialist.

At the end of the day, this is just another dog, in just another shelter, and he's about to become just another corpse. Say what you will about the outpouring of sympathy that has not yet led to a safe and loving home for the animal; thousands of animals are "put down" every day in the United States because nobody comes to their rescue. The only shocking thing about this dog's death will be the reason he ended up at the shelter in the first place.

Dogs are supposed to be "man's best friend". Daily, we are reminded that this friendship does not necessarily work both ways.

Update: Elton lives! Veterinary technician Stephanie Fryns rescued the dog today, and has named him Elton. Strangely, she describes the dog as submissive, according to ABC News.
____________________

Notes:

Miller, Daniel. "Dog sentenced to death in Tennessee because he is 'gay'". Mail Online. January 31, 2013. DailyMail.co.uk. January 31, 2013. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2271192/Dog-sentenced-death-Tennessee-gay.html

Goldman, Russell. "Elton, the ‘Gay’ Dog, Spared the Gas Chamber". ABC News. January 31, 2013. ABCNews.Go.com. January 31, 2013. http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2013/01/elton-the-gay-dog-spared-the-gas-chamber/

 

Meanwhile, In Tennessee

Meanwhile, In Tennessee
Republican state senator: LGBT youth shouldn't get confidentiality

One of the most important shields we offer people in society is patient or client confidentiality. Some people are afraid to talk to their doctors about erectile dysfunction, or infertility. Some resent general health surveys their doctors request in order to give more accurate medical advice. Psychologists must often work through a client's ego defenses in order to understand the true situation. If this sort of information cycled into the public sphere, these relationships would suffer greatly, as fewer people would be willing to be honest about how much they drink, smoke, masturbate, feel suicidal, and so on.

Sometimes the patient is reluctant for fear of embarrassment. Sometimes they feel a need to protect their legal standing.

In Tennessee, Republicans put forward a bill that would have forced teachers to not discuss homosexuality under any circumstances. After two years of argument, investment of public time and money, and plenty of bad feelings, the bill died because legislators finally figured out that most of it was unnecessary; they sought to strike homosexuality from sex education until after eighth grade, but apparently didn't realize that the Tennessee public school curriculum doesn't teach sex ed until after eighth grade.

Silly, stupid, embarrassing. So what?

Well, the bill is back, but with a twist:

... two long sections that easily are interpreted to include a scenario where a student approaches a trusted teacher, says they think they might be gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender:

Parents or legal guardians of students who receive such counseling shall be notified as soon as practicable that such counseling has occurred.​

(Badash)​

In other words:

But the newest iteration also includes a provision requiring teachers or counselors to inform the parents of some students who identify themselves as LGBT.

(Strasser)​

If a student comes to the school counselor to discuss questions of their homosexuality or transgenderism, they cannot expect confidentiality; the counselor must inform the parents.

As Anne-Rose Strasser explains for ThinkProgress:

Family rejection is a serious risk for LGBT youth. Kids who are LGBT often face alienation, if not outright abandonment, because they come out. Forty percent of homeless youth are LGBT, and many of them report that the reason they left home was to escape an environment hostile to their sexual orientation. LGBT youth who experience family rejection are at high risk for depression and suicide.​

SB 234 is both cruel and dangerous. But, then again, perhaps that is its intention. Sen. Campfield, well ... right:

And if anyone doubts Campfield's intentions, or his point of view, let's remember this is Stacey Campfield, the man who has said repeatedly that it is "virtually impossible" to contract HIV/AIDS through heterosexual sex. In that same interview, Campfield (falsely) said that "most people realize that AIDS came from the homosexual community — it was one guy screwing a monkey, if I recall correctly, and then having sex with men. It was an airline pilot, if I recall ...."

Campfield has also claimed:

[Homosexuals] do not naturally reproduce. It has not been proven that it is nature. It happens in nature, but so does beastiality That does not make it right or something we should be teaching in school.​

And despite Tennessee's sadly numerous anti-gay bullying teen suicides, Senator Campfield has said, "[the] bullying thing is the biggest lark out there."

(Badash)​

It is, then, not so much of a question of not being beyond imagination that Sen. Campfield's intention is to further alienate LGBT youths in hopes that they will kill themselves. Rather, it seems very nearly the logical presupposition.
____________________

Notes:

Badash, David. "'Don't Say Gay' Bill Returns With Added Requirement To Tell Parents Their Kids Are Gay". The New Civil Rights Movement. January 30, 2013. TheNewCivilRightsMovement.com. January 31, 2013. http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.co...-their-kids-are-gay/politics/2013/01/30/59382

Strasser, Anne-Rose. "Tennessee 'Don't Say Gay' Bill Now Requires Teachers To Inform Parents If Their Child Is Gay". ThinkProgress. January 30, 2013. ThinkProgress.org. January 31, 2013. http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2013/01/30/1514051/dont-say-gay-tennessee/

Campfield, Stacey. "Senate Bill 234". General Assembly of the State of Tennessee. 2013. Capitol.TN.gov. January 31, 2013. http://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/108/Bill/SB0234.pdf

 

Equal Protection

Equal Protection
Obama administration enters Hollingsworth, Windsor discussions

The moment has arrived:

• The United States will address the following question presented by this case: whether Proposition 8 violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. (Verrilli et al., Hollingsworth v. Perry)

• Whether Section 3 of DOMA violates the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection of the laws as applied to persons of the same sex who are legally married under the laws of their state. (Verrilli et al., U.S. v. Windsor)​

The Obama administration has engaged the marriage equality issues before the Supreme Court with what it hopes is a one-two knockout punch against heterosupremacist traditionalism. Taking up the constitutional guarantees of equality found in Amendments V (federal) and (XIV states), Solicitor General Donald Verrilli and his team pick apart the traditionalist arguments before the Court in two amicus briefs.

In both questions, the administration comes down on the side of marriage equality, arguing in Hollingsworth that Proposition 8, either as described by its proponents or examined from a practical perspective, fails the appropriate scrutiny to withstand constitutional testing. That is, once one strips away the political rhetoric as the chaff it is, the remaining realities simply fail constitutional scrutiny; the brief even charges that California undermines its own arguments by its attempt to establish a separate but not-quite equal category for same sex unions.

THe Windsor brief is a straightforward, functional document with, if you'll pardon the metaphor, a striking subtext; it is also used as a well-handled truncheon to bludgeon House Republicans, who have used the aptly misnamed Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (aptly known as BLAG) to pursue an elderly woman's inheritance. That is, House Republicans have spent several million dollars in hopes that the government should keep $363,053 paid in estate taxes that Edith Windsor only owes because DoMA prevents the government from recognizing her marriage.

The basic argument:

Section 3 of DOMA violates the fundamental constitutional guarantee of equal protection. The law denies to tens of thousands of same-sex couples who are legally married under state law an array of important federal benefits that are available to legally married opposite-sex couples. Because this discrimination cannot be justified as substantially furthering any important governmental interest, Section 3 is unconstitutional.​

The expanded argument comes together in three parts, first establishing the need for heightened scrutiny. This is the weak point of both briefs insofar as Justice Scalia can be reasonably expected to disagree regardless of the actual argument. How much support he can muster toward this question will have tremendous influence on both cases. In Windsor, the administration brief argues the problems of Section 3 in the context of BLAG's advocacy of DoMA. As brawls go, this one is a bit disgraceful; it's not nice to beat up people who are that much weaker than you, and the sheer magnitude of the White House's thrashing of House Republicans is sufficient to make one forget momentarily that BLAG is the bully that picked this fight. If five justices accept the need for heightened scrutiny, DoMA is over. Can Saint Antonin muster the necessary forces to ride through the fray and rescue this whoring witch of a law dressed up as a blushing maiden of threatened virtue?

With Hollingsworth, the scrutiny question exists; if Scalia thinks he can pounce, he will. While there are other avenues for avoiding the issues, such as leaving the question to the states, it is hard to imagine the Court would bother hearing Hollingsworth at all if these were still open. The cynic might suggest conservatives wanted Hollingsworth in order to consolidate the cases and use state sovereignty as a lever to protect DoMA in general, but that is an extraneously complex theory that can only be justified in the twin presumptions that Scalia and company are so cyncial while the Court's more liberal wing is so naïve.

This is the thriller. Everyone is in—citizens, states, and all three branches of the federal government. On paper, at least, this looks like no contest whatsoever; DoMA should be knocked out without question. But oral arguments are not slated until March 26, when the fighters come head to head in the nation's most hallowed juristic arena. We cannot expect the underdog to have a glass jaw, and his right glove will be packed with a ton of Scalia.
____________________

Notes:

Verrilli Jr., Donald B., et al. "Brief for the United States as Amicus Curiae Supporting Respondents". Hollingsworth v. Perry. February, 2013. SBlog.S3.amazonaws.com. March 1, 2013. http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/12-144tsacUnitedStates.pdf

—————. "Brief for the United States on the Merits Question". United States v. Windsor. February, 2013. SBlog.S3.amazonaws.com. March 1, 2013. http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/US-merits-brief-Windsor-2-22-12.pdf

 

wellwisher

There is nothing else to call it, because homosexuality is as natural as breathing in mammals and birds. The instances of homosexual behavior in Nature are copious and widespread. It is the normal condition for all wolves in a pack except for the Alpha pair. Bonobos(one of our nearest kin)are just as likely to participate in homosexual sex acts as they are heterosexual. Many Penguin pairs of a homosexual nature are documented. There are no humans who are either 100% Homosexual or 100% hetero, we all respond to both sexes, though one may suppress such attractions in the way you behave. But that is CULTURAL, not NATURAL. You are confusing the two.

Grumpy

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I disagree there. There is a range of responses, from 100% heterosexual to 100% homosexual. The Kinsey Scale is a good guide to this.

 

billvon

Yes, every human falls on the Bell curve in a range from 100% gay and straight. There are NONE that are 100% either, though they may, due to social norms, have 100% compliance with either type of behaviors. Ask yourself an irreverent(but cogent)question. Does any "hetero" male enjoy watching porn more if it doesn't include a male participant? Discounting a personal fetish for girl-on-girl all will prefer watching porn with male genitals than porn without, this is borne out by numerous studies. A 100% hetero would not enjoy such a display. This is the margin within which every hetero will find that fraction of "gayness" that is his. Without cultural conditioning sex attractions(and likely behavior)with both sexes would follow a smooth Bell curve, with cultural conditioning(including the false belief in the purity of our attractions)it's more like a light switch(ie you are seen as one or the other)but the underlying, Natural attractions are being artificially suppressed and modified, especially as pertains to behavior(or at least PUBLIC behavior)and cultural norms cannot be called Natural(as wellwisher is trying to do).

Grumpy

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Hmm. I am. I know at least one gay man who is 100% homosexual. I also know a lot of people in between.

Not really a factor for me. But again, if some people prefer to see males in their porn, then that's fine too.

Of course! We don't go around raping people any more (well, 99.9% don't) and that's a very good thing in my book.