[Troll]

Brilliant! Spain is on the verge of legalising gay marriage making it the third European country to recognise same sex marraiges. Public opinion in Spain seems to have overcome the stiffs in the Senate.

Hopefully this spreads quickly to other countries. It really seems to have become a topic for debate recently in countries all over the world. One gets the feeling that the dam is about to break and that there will be a flood of countries recognising same sex marriages in the near future.

Spain's lower house of parliament is expected to vote for a second time in favour of legalising gay marriage.

The move will overrule last week's rejection of the bill by the upper house, the Senate.

The bill will then become a law in a month's time, making Spain Europe's third nation after the Netherlands and Belgium to allow same sex marriages.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4636133.stm

[Athens]

If it happens Spain will become the 4th country in the world to recognize it after Netherlands, Belgium and Canada

[von Wrangell]

Let's hope more countries pick up on this.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by Athens

If it happens Spain will become the 4th country in the world to recognize it after Netherlands, Belgium and Canada

Actually, I think there may be a few more countries than just those three. Don't Germany, Sweden, Denmark, Norway and Finland also recognise same sex marriages? Then there are the second tier countries that give gay couples all of the same rights although they don't call it marriage. France and Switzerland have the PACS and the UK and Croatia both afford gay couples the same rights and benefits as hetero couples although under a separate regime.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Troll

Actually, I think there may be a few more countries than just those three. Don't Germany, Sweden, Denmark, Norway and Finland also recognise same sex marriages? Then there are the second tier countries that give gay couples all of the same rights although they don't call it marriage. France and Switzerland have the PACS and the UK and Croatia both afford gay couples the same rights and benefits as hetero couples although under a separate regime.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4081999.stm

In June 2005, Canada's parliament approved a bill to legalise same-sex marriage. It is expected to win Senate approval and become law by July, making Canada the third country after the Netherlands and Belgium to allow gay marriages. Gay marriage is already legal in eight of 10 provinces and one of Canada's three territories.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/americ...eut/index.html

Legislators voted by 158-133 to support the bill, which makes Canada only the third country in the world after Belgium and the Netherlands to permit gay marriages.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by Athens

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4081999.stm



http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/americ...eut/index.html

Aha, some subtle distinctions there.

[Athens]

http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/nation...age050630.html

its offical, Spain is now the 4th Country to allow it

For a more complete history of Gay rights around the entire world, this link has it all
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/sa...ine_world.html

[macintologist]

Why is the religious right (ie. religious collectivist left) so bent on denying one group of people equal protection of the law?

[Athens]

Originally Posted by macintologist

Why is the religious right (ie. religious collectivist left) so bent on denying one group of people equal protection of the law?

because they think it is against god and those people shouldnt even be allowed.

[macintologist]

They've yet to even prove their God exists other than in the form of a space pixie in their feeble minds.

[IceBreaker]

Originally Posted by macintologist

They've yet to even prove their God exists other than in the form of a space pixie in their feeble minds.

this post proves God exists. If God did not you wouldn't have cared to have posted such a nasty comment.

isn't it interesting that SOME who are allegedly for tolerance bother to post such a bigoted comment?

I'm all for gay marriage, & gay rights, I personally think we are all born equal under the law and whomever we choose to marry is our own business, not the goverments.

The mistake the left makes it assuming that everyone who is for gay marriage is against God.
...your own post illustrates why gay marriage has such a hard time being accepted by many people as at the same time you want to ask for equal rights in marriage you denegrate those who choose to believe and often (those on the left) work even harder to deny and or denegrate the right of religion by those of us who do believe.

Shame on you.

[Millennium]

I still favor the all-civil-union model, where existing marriages are converted to civil unions and all such relationships henceforth -gay, straight, or otherwise- use this term in legal language. The term grants equal rights for all, the religious term goes back to the religions where it belonged in the first place, and the definition of one of the underpinnings of society goes back to the societies where it belonged in the first place. I fail to see how anyone would lose under this model.

This trend, however, signals much darker times, as one of the pillars of civilization continues to be undermined, as the union of opposites -one of the most important aspects of marriage- ceases to have meaning. Equal rights are a Good Thing, but this was not the best way to achieve them.

[RAILhead]

Originally Posted by Millennium

I still favor the all-civil-union model, where existing marriages are converted to civil unions and all such relationships henceforth -gay, straight, or otherwise- use this term in legal language. The term grants equal rights for all, the religious term goes back to the religions where it belonged in the first place, and the definition of one of the underpinnings of society goes back to the societies where it belonged in the first place. I fail to see how anyone would lose under this model.

This trend, however, signals much darker times, as one of the pillars of civilization continues to be undermined, as the union of opposites -one of the most important aspects of marriage- ceases to have meaning. Equal rights are a Good Thing, but this was not the best way to achieve them.

[zerostar]

Originally Posted by Millennium

I still favor the all-civil-union model, where existing marriages are converted to civil unions and all such relationships henceforth -gay, straight, or otherwise- use this term in legal language. The term grants equal rights for all, the religious term goes back to the religions where it belonged in the first place, and the definition of one of the underpinnings of society goes back to the societies where it belonged in the first place. I fail to see how anyone would lose under this model.

The problem is that much like 'walkman' this term is not recognized as a religious term, ask a married atheist if they are married and you would be hard pressed to find one who says 'no, i am in a civil union'

Sony lost the term walkman, religion lost the term marriage, as much as I would like all marriages to be deemed civil unions (to stop all the BS) it isn't gonna happen.

Originally Posted by Millennium

This trend, however, signals much darker times, as one of the pillars of civilization continues to be undermined, as the union of opposites -one of the most important aspects of marriage- ceases to have meaning.

Any that would be what, exactly?

[dreilly1]

Originally Posted by Millennium

This trend, however, signals much darker times, as one of the pillars of civilization continues to be undermined, as the union of opposites -one of the most important aspects of marriage- ceases to have meaning. Equal rights are a Good Thing, but this was not the best way to achieve them.

You think that the "union of opposites" pertains solely to gender? Or that a neat freak and a lazy slob sharing the same apartment is a "union of opposites" if one is male and one is female, but if both are male it's just a good television show?

To me, it's quite simple: the world is a harsh place, and when two people decide to share their lives together and dedicate themselves to each other to even out the odds, our society should encourage it and make it easier for them to do so. Their genders are about as relevant to the discussion as their race.

[Goldfinger]

Originally Posted by IceBreaker

this post proves God exists. If God did not you wouldn't have cared to have posted such a nasty comment.

.....

[zerostar]

Originally Posted by dreilly1

To me, it's quite simple: the world is a harsh place, and when two people decide to share their lives together and dedicate themselves to each other to even out the odds, our society should encourage it and make it easier for them to do so. Their genders are about as relevant to the discussion as their race.

Reminds me of: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...NG3N4RAV41.DTL

"Roy and Silo, two chinstrap penguins at the Central Park Zoo in Manhattan, are completely devoted to each other. For nearly six years now, they have been inseparable. "

"At one time, the two seemed so desperate to incubate an egg together that they put a rock in their nest and sat on it, keeping it warm in the folds of their abdomens, said their chief keeper, Rob Gramzay. Finally, he gave them a fertile egg that needed care to hatch. Things went perfectly, and a chick, Tango, was born."

"For the next 2 1/2 months they raised Tango, keeping her warm and feeding her food from their beaks until she could go out into the world on her own. Gramzay is full of praise. "They did a great job," he said."

p.s. this story has been adopted in to a book, i know because my daughter checked it out at the local library.

[deomacius]

Originally Posted by zerostar

Reminds me of: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...NG3N4RAV41.DTL

"Roy and Silo, two chinstrap penguins at the Central Park Zoo in Manhattan, are completely devoted to each other. For nearly six years now, they have been inseparable. "

"At one time, the two seemed so desperate to incubate an egg together that they put a rock in their nest and sat on it, keeping it warm in the folds of their abdomens, said their chief keeper, Rob Gramzay. Finally, he gave them a fertile egg that needed care to hatch. Things went perfectly, and a chick, Tango, was born."

"For the next 2 1/2 months they raised Tango, keeping her warm and feeding her food from their beaks until she could go out into the world on her own. Gramzay is full of praise. "They did a great job," he said."

p.s. this story has been adopted in to a book, i know because my daughter checked it out at the local library.

One question... did those penguins actually engage in homosexual sex or did they merely nurse an egg and spend a lot of time together?

[zerostar]

Originally Posted by deomacius

One question... did those penguins actually engage in homosexual sex or did they merely nurse an egg and spend a lot of time together?

They exhibit what in penguin parlance is called "ecstatic behavior": That is, they entwine their necks, they vocalize to each other, they have sex. Silo and Roy are, to anthropomorphize a bit, gay penguins.

In my short stint at Miami Metro I can tell you that a LOT of animals engage in homosexual sex. Birds, beetles, sheep, fruit bats, dolphins and orangutans all do.

[deomacius]

Originally Posted by zerostar

They exhibit what in penguin parlance is called "ecstatic behavior": That is, they entwine their necks, they vocalize to each other, they have sex. Silo and Roy are, to anthropomorphize a bit, gay penguins.

In my short stint at Miami Metro I can tell you that a LOT of animals engage in homosexual sex. Birds, beetles, sheep, fruit bats, dolphins and orangutans all do.

Do they do this in a sign of dominance?

[zerostar]

Originally Posted by deomacius

Do they do this in a sign of dominance?

This happens seemingly at random, the homosexual animals are no more or less dominant on average than the straight ones. There are always exceptions.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Millennium

I still favor the all-civil-union model, where existing marriages are converted to civil unions and all such relationships henceforth -gay, straight, or otherwise- use this term in legal language. The term grants equal rights for all, the religious term goes back to the religions where it belonged in the first place, and the definition of one of the underpinnings of society goes back to the societies where it belonged in the first place. I fail to see how anyone would lose under this model.

This trend, however, signals much darker times, as one of the pillars of civilization continues to be undermined, as the union of opposites -one of the most important aspects of marriage- ceases to have meaning. Equal rights are a Good Thing, but this was not the best way to achieve them.

</applause>

Been my position for years now.

[deomacius]

Originally Posted by zerostar

This happens seemingly at random, the homosexual animals are no more or less dominant on average than the straight ones. There are always exceptions.

I only ask these questions because of the following...

• I read somewhere that birds tend to have a strong tendency towards bonding with anything at a young age. (see examples of young birds being raised by dogs and other animals). What was the upbringing of these animals you mention? Did they pick up this behavior through a normal course to maturity or did something occur during that time that caused them to deviate from typical mating process?

• Isn't "mounting" usually associated with determining dominance and submission in the animal kingdom? It seems like I read somewhere that most if not all of these examples of homosexual animals fell into two categories. A) Dominance/submission displays or B) non-sexual pairings. Plus, do animals have the same reasons for mating that humans do? I'd like to see scientific proof that animals engage in homosexual activity for pleasure or love.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by IceBreaker

isn't it interesting that SOME who are allegedly for tolerance bother to post such a bigoted comment?

Quoted for emphasis.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by macintologist

They've yet to even prove their God exists other than in the form of a space pixie in their feeble minds.

You're out of line with the "feeble minds" bit, especially considering how many truly great minds believe(d) in a god (if not the Christian variant) of sorts, but you do make a point:


When arguing matters of belief and opinion (as ALL spiritual persuasions naturally are), what should law follow, if not science? It is the only true attempt at neutrality.

People can (and will) believe *anything*.

(Wanted to bring that point up in the last abortion discussion re: beginning of human life, but couldn't be arsed in that mess.)

-s*

[eklipse]

Originally Posted by Millennium

I still favor the all-civil-union model, where existing marriages are converted to civil unions and all such relationships henceforth -gay, straight, or otherwise- use this term in legal language. The term grants equal rights for all, the religious term goes back to the religions where it belonged in the first place, and the definition of one of the underpinnings of society goes back to the societies where it belonged in the first place. I fail to see how anyone would lose under this model.

This trend, however, signals much darker times, as one of the pillars of civilization continues to be undermined, as the union of opposites -one of the most important aspects of marriage- ceases to have meaning. Equal rights are a Good Thing, but this was not the best way to achieve them.

Well said.

[forkies]

Originally Posted by Millennium

as one of the pillars of civilization continues to be undermined, as the union of opposites

it's disconcerting that it is believed a "union of opposites" is somehow more meaningful than one which is homosexual in nature. is this what you are actually saying, or am i misunderstanding? (i.e. hetero-normative much?) if it is what you are saying, what is important to you in a relationship, the love or the complementary aspect? do you think such values should apply for everyone?

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heteronormative:
In a heteronormative society, men and women are interpreted to be natural complements, socially as well as biologically, and especially when it comes to reproduction. Woman and men are necessary for procreation, therefore male/female coupling is assumed to be the norm.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by Millennium

I still favor the all-civil-union model, where existing marriages are converted to civil unions and all such relationships henceforth -gay, straight, or otherwise- use this term in legal language. The term grants equal rights for all, the religious term goes back to the religions where it belonged in the first place, and the definition of one of the underpinnings of society goes back to the societies where it belonged in the first place. I fail to see how anyone would lose under this model.

Fully agree.

This trend, however, signals much darker times, as one of the pillars of civilization continues to be undermined, as the union of opposites -one of the most important aspects of marriage- ceases to have meaning. Equal rights are a Good Thing, but this was not the best way to achieve them.

Completely disagree.

[Tarambana]

Originally Posted by Millennium

I still favor the all-civil-union model, where existing marriages are converted to civil unions and all such relationships henceforth -gay, straight, or otherwise- use this term in legal language. The term grants equal rights for all, the religious term goes back to the religions where it belonged in the first place, and the definition of one of the underpinnings of society goes back to the societies where it belonged in the first place. I fail to see how anyone would lose under this model.

Which is, in fact, exactly what we have here in Spain: marriage is only of civil nature, but it might be performed in different fashions (including those of several religions)

Originally Posted by Millennium

This trend, however, signals much darker times, as one of the pillars of civilization continues to be undermined, as the union of opposites -one of the most important aspects of marriage- ceases to have meaning.

Nonsense. The union of opposites is not such a basal element for civilization. And it doesn't even cease to have a meaning: it's meaning is still confined to heterosexual unions; it simply cannot be predicated about the gay marriages.

Originally Posted by Millennium

Equal rights are a Good Thing, but this was not the best way to achieve them.

Which way? You don't even have a clue as to how this has been achieved (as it is exactly what you promoted up there in your post), and yet you criticize it.

[Edit: Got rid of unnecessary tag]

[zerostar]

Originally Posted by deomacius

What was the upbringing of these animals you mention? Did they pick up this behavior through a normal course to maturity or did something occur during that time that caused them to deviate from typical mating process?

All the ones I know of are raised in captivity in normal settings, sorry Im not too involved or interested in this as I work with chimps most of the time.

I only ask these questions because of the following...

do animals have the same reasons for mating that humans do? I'd like to see scientific proof that animals engage in homosexual activity for pleasure or love.

Can't help you with the first one, I work on chimp/orangutans gene research and don't work with the bird that closely.

As for the second bit of the last question, orangutans most certainly engage in homosexual acts for pleasure. Love? I don't know how to answer, how can you know what those 2 penguins are feeling, the fact that they are partners and have sex and wants to raise a child together tells me they are a couple in every sense.

Anyway, this has little to do with human sexual behavior, at least as of now

As far as human sexual behavior your can either think it is a choice or it is not a choice (did you choose to be straight?).

If it is a choice, then the person has made that choice and it should be respected as long as it is between 2 consenting adults. If it is not a choice then that should be obvious.

[deomacius]

Originally Posted by zerostar

All the ones I know of are raised in captivity in normal settings, sorry Im not too involved or interested in this as I work with chimps most of the time.

Am I the only one who finds this statement ironic?

I don't know how to answer, how can you know what those 2 penguins are feeling, the fact that they are partners and have sex and wants to raise a child together tells me they are a couple in every sense.

I was always taught that animals are motivated by a desire to survive and procreate. I still would like to know if those birds are actually mating. I've seen elsewhere that they simply pal around. Regardless, I'd like confirmation of some sort that it's not a domination thing and the pairing isn't a survival mechanism (strength in numbers or something).

Anyway, this has little to do with human sexual behavior, at least as of now

Agreed. People shouldn't look to the animal kingdom to justify their desires.

As far as human sexual behavior your can either think it is a choice or it is not a choice (did you choose to be straight?).

I was conditioned to be straight. Just like I was conditioned to prefer light skinned women over dark skinned women. I'm a mixed man (black and white) who prefers fair skinned women because I was raised in predominantly white environments. My physical and sexual preferences and particularly my legendary fixation ( ) with redheads are direct results of my past experiences. They aren't genetic.

If it is a choice, then the person has made that choice and it should be respected as long as it is between 2 consenting adults. If it is not a choice then that should be obvious.

I agree that people should be able to make whatever choice they want, but don't mistake my tolerance for agreement with or condoning it. I am tolerant in the truest sense of the word. Tolerance being indifference, NOT acceptance.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by deomacius

I'd like to see scientific proof that animals engage in homosexual activity for pleasure or love.

I think there's pretty good evidence that animals engage in sex for pleasure. Not sure about love.

There's a book all about this issue called Biological Exuberance. I haven't read it, but I remember a lot of people talking about it when it came out.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by deomacius

I'd like to see scientific proof that animals engage in homosexual activity for pleasure or love.

I'd like to see scientific proof that love exists as anything more than just a social construct.

[zigzag]

Originally Posted by Millennium

I still favor the all-civil-union model, where existing marriages are converted to civil unions and all such relationships henceforth -gay, straight, or otherwise- use this term in legal language. The term grants equal rights for all, the religious term goes back to the religions where it belonged in the first place, and the definition of one of the underpinnings of society goes back to the societies where it belonged in the first place. I fail to see how anyone would lose under this model.

This trend, however, signals much darker times, as one of the pillars of civilization continues to be undermined, as the union of opposites -one of the most important aspects of marriage- ceases to have meaning. Equal rights are a Good Thing, but this was not the best way to achieve them.

I fail to see what difference it makes. It's just a word, with a range of meanings. Churches don't own it. If a church wants to attach special meaning to it, fine - they all do so anyway. But they don't own it.

What if a church decides to recognize same-sex marriages? Would we arrest them for using the word improperly?

Either recognize same-sex relationships or don't. I don't see much point in worrying about what it's called.

[CreepingDeth]

I don't care. You can have all the rights (patient viewings, etc.) that are guaranteed by marriage. Just don't call it marriage. It's not.

Man + Woman = Marriage
Man + Man or Woman + Woman = Civil Union (or whatever term is deemed best)

They should have the same rights, but I just don't think the word marriage is the right one.

[spatterson]

Isn't it true that Germany also has legal marriage between Homosexual persons? I think Bayern is the only state within Germany that is struggling with gay marriage

As a gay person myself, I have to agree with Millennium... the term Civil Union is politically correct, and non discriminatory.

[AKcrab]

Originally Posted by spatterson

As a gay person myself, I have to agree with Millennium... the term Civil Union is politically correct, and non discriminatory.

I don't see many religious folks accepting being denied marriage, as CreepingDeath has made clear.

Marriage == Approved by God and the Government
Civil Union == Approved by the Government

I think that's part of Millennium's argument about "decline of society", but I could be missing his point.

Personally, I don't care if my marriage/union is approved by God, but I'm guessing it would be an important issue for a large number of people, gay and straight.

[sanity assassin]

Looks like it hit a bit of a stumbling block in Israel. 3 folks stabbed at a Gay rights march.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4639731.stm

[zerostar]

Originally Posted by nonhuman

I'd like to see scientific proof that love exists as anything more than just a social construct.

Hell i'd like to see scientific proof that ALL emotions are not just a chemical release and a reaction to said releases.

[spatterson]

Originally Posted by AKcrab

Personally, I don't care if my marriage/union is approved by God, but I'm guessing it would be an important issue for a large number of people, gay and straight.

Even as a Christian, the word marriage means little to me... its just a word. If heterosexual couples want to keep the word marriage, fine... just give us our rights to be bound to each-other legally. I can also understand homosexual couples wanting the right to marry, to have their relationship approved by god. But my opinion stands... Is civil-union really a bad word?

[zerostar]

Originally Posted by deomacius

Am I the only one who finds this statement ironic?

I meant a normal captive environment, don't be a smart ass

I was always taught...

I'd advise suing the school system...

I was always taught that animals are motivated by a desire to survive and procreate.

Aren't we all, deep down inside. Isn't that what they tell us to do.

I still would like to know if those birds are actually mating. I've seen elsewhere that they simply pal around.

Perhaps you could try and RTFA?

Regardless, I'd like confirmation of some sort that it's not a domination thing and the pairing isn't a survival mechanism (strength in numbers or something).

There are theories that all animals mate for a survival mechanisim, is this inherently a bad thing or does it just make you feel inferior to your emotions

I'm a mixed man (black and white) who prefers fair skinned women because I was raised in predominantly white environments.

Thats one theory, you got any proof? You hardly qualify as a scientific sample.

but don't mistake my tolerance for agreement with or condoning it. I am tolerant in the truest sense of the word. Tolerance being indifference, NOT acceptance.

How generous of you

p.s. Guess what? I don't agree with mixed couples, it is against my religion and against the moral fabric of america. People blatantly allowing and accepting this is a step backwards in our society. I don't accept this but I am tolerant of YOUR KIND.

[zerostar]

Originally Posted by sanity assassin

3 folks stabbed at a Gay rights march.

Thats just straight people being nice

/Chappelle

[CreepingDeth]

Originally Posted by AKcrab

I don't see many religious folks accepting being denied marriage, as CreepingDeath has made clear.

Marriage == Approved by God and the Government
Civil Union == Approved by the Government

I think that's part of Millennium's argument about "decline of society", but I could be missing his point.

Personally, I don't care if my marriage/union is approved by God, but I'm guessing it would be an important issue for a large number of people, gay and straight.

Huh?

BTW, it's CreepingDeth with no 'A'. Get it right, bitch!

[AKcrab]

Originally Posted by zerostar

p.s. Guess what? I don't agree with mixed couples, it is against my religion and against the moral fabric of america. People blatantly allowing and accepting this is a step backwards in our society. I don't accept this but I am tolerant of YOUR KIND.

Now you've done it. Get your flamesuit on.

Maybe I can save us all some time.

Race is not a choice, sexuality is.
No it isn't.
Yes it is.
You chose to be straight?
... It's icky, shut up.

All these threads seem to reach this point.

[AKcrab]

Originally Posted by CreepingDeth

Huh?

BTW, it's CreepingDeth with no 'A'. Get it right, bitch!

Oops. Apologies. To Mr.Deth.

[CreepingDeth]

Originally Posted by AKcrab

Oops. Apologies. To Mr.Deth.

Alright, you're my favorite bitch, so I'll let you go.
I really didn't understand the post I quoted.

This thread is going downhill…I wonder if I should express it in a picture.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by CreepingDeth

BTW, it's CreepingDeth with no 'A'. Get it right, bitch!

Very subtle. I never noticed. hmmmm

[CreepingDeth]

No 'A' ala Zeppelin. Actually, I was thinking of changing my name to Regalia or YYZ or Strangiato or something. I'm not sure though.

[AKcrab]

Originally Posted by CreepingDeth

I really didn't understand the post I quoted.

Originally Posted by CreepingDeth

I don't care. You can have all the rights (patient viewings, etc.) that are guaranteed by marriage. Just don't call it marriage. It's not.

Man + Woman = Marriage
Man + Man or Woman + Woman = Civil Union (or whatever term is deemed best)

I was trying to point out that many folks (on both sides) would not agree with Millennium's proposal (to remove marriage and go with all civil unions), and was using your post as an example.

I'm not saying you're wrong, or that I disagree.

[CreepingDeth]

Originally Posted by AKcrab

I was trying to point out that many folks (on both sides) would not agree with Millennium's proposal (to remove marriage and go with all civil unions), and was using your post as an example.

I'm not saying you're wrong, or that I disagree.

Oh. Now I understand, bitch. I guess I don't pay you enough to take English lessons. Youses gots grammer awful something!