Senate shoots down homophobe bill

[jem]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

Not saying gays "should" or should not be married. Not saying whites "should" marry whites only. Not saying "men" should marry women, etc.

I'm saying human beings "should" be able to marry who they want, as long as they and their partner are capable of informed and reasonable consent...

I stand in opposition to Nambla or any other organization that suggest adults have sexual relations with anyone that is not of an age where they cannot come to reasonable and informed consent.

Same would be true for an adult male who seduces a retarded woman or man who has no real understanding of what he or she is doing.

I don't believe children are capable of making a decision to have sex and/or marry, or have a relationship of that nature with either a fellow child or an adult.

Nice try but now you are relying on the law to define reasonable and informed consent. Noteworthy by its absence from you argument is a your analysis of how many people may be allowed in a marriage.

You are drawing lines just like people who defend the status quo. Your activist stance has no more legitimacy than than the legislature who defines marriage as between one man and one women.

 

[nitro]

I urge everyone to read this article:

http://www.seedmagazine.com/news/2006/06/the_gay_animal_kingdom.php

Joan Roughgarden thinks Charles Darwin made a terrible mistake. Not about natural selection—she's no bible-toting creationist—but about his other great theory of evolution: sexual selection. According to Roughgarden, sexual selection can't explain the homosexuality that's been documented in over 450 different vertebrate species. This means that same-sex sexuality—long disparaged as a quirk of human culture—is a normal, and probably necessary, fact of life. By neglecting all those gay animals, she says, Darwin misunderstood the basic nature of heterosexuality.

Note that the researcher, Joan Roughgarden, is a transexual. I neither agree or disagree with this article as it is highly speculative, but at least it attempts to present a scientific basis for homosexuality in all animals.

nitro

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

Yes, I do rely on the law to make definitions, and judges to evaluate those definitions as they apply to a case by case situation when necessary....

Yes, I don't care if 1 man marries 100 women. I pitty the fool....

Quote from jem:

Nice try but now you are relying on the law to define reasonable and informed consent. Noteworthy by its absence from you argument is a your analysis of how many people may be allowed in a marriage.

You are drawing lines just like people who defend the status quo. Your activist stance has no more legitimacy than than the legislature who defines marriage as between one man and one women.