Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Matrixx8 said:What's the best way to describe how the once-formidable Republican Party is struggling? Is the GOP Jake LaMotta, stubbornly rushing into punches (the Iraq war) and getting pounded into a final pathetic retirement (K Street consulting firms)? Is it Doug Flutie, abandoning a tattered playbook (Rovism) and throwing a final Hail Mary pass (war with Iran) to triumph over Miami (Nancy Pelosi)?
(Rest of article here)
Bullypulpit said:Chimpy McPresident (a.k.a. Dubbyuh) will be giving a speech supporting a Constitutional amendment banning same-gender marriage. Bill Frist is speaking in support of an amendment banning the burning of the US flag. While they're at it, why don't they sponsor an amendment requiring couples to get married wrapped in the flag?
A desperate GOP is working to whip the lunatic fringe base into a homophobic, red, white and blue lather with issues which directly impact on...ummmm...nobody. This especially when they're getting killed on issues of national and world import such as the war in Iraq...the burgeoning national debt...stagnant wages...global warming...and the list goes on.
God forbid we should focus on something affecting us all. After all, we can't have these upity homosexuals turning us all into sex-starved homosexyuls and fornicators while they burn the flag, now can we.
Anyone who falls for that tired old GOP bullshit should really look into getting themselves sterilized. They're just dragging the rest of the gene pool down with them
GunnyL said:No Amendment requiring blathering, extremist lefties to have their mouths sewn shut with fishing line?
I am S-O-O-O disappointed.
GunnyL said:No Amendment requiring blathering, extremist lefties to have their mouths sewn shut with fishing line?
I am S-O-O-O disappointed.
dilloduck said:Can't do that. It would be promoting the religious seamstress guild.
separation of church and state ! remember ?
Bullypulpit said:Actually, an amendment banning same-gender marriages could violate the notion of separation of church and state as objections to such unions are rooted in religious doctrine.
Clearly, there are two other viable arguments on this issue. One is the equal rights clause of the 14th Amendment, in which case homosexual marriage would be a question of individual rights. The other is the 10th Amendment, in which case it would be a question of States' rights. (The states already have the constitutional authority to regulate marriage laws, but there is a legal question as to whether they could actually dictate the content of marriage laws in terms of who marries whom. This could open an ugly door: interracial marriages, for example.Bullypulpit said:Actually, an amendment banning same-gender marriages could violate the notion of separation of church and state as objections to such unions are rooted in religious doctrine.
Bullypulpit said:Since they're on the subject, why not a constitutional amendment to ban pre-marital sex all together? It is logically consistent with the notion of banning the marriage of same-gender couples.
And, s-o-o-o typical, you can't intelligently address the issue, so you resort to lame-assed insults. I'm s-o-o-o disappointed, but not in the least bit surprised.
Matrixx8 said:Clearly, there are two other viable arguments on this issue. One is the equal rights clause of the 14th Amendment, in which case homosexual marriage would be a question of individual rights. The other is the 10th Amendment, in which case it would be a question of States' rights. (The states already have the constitutional authority to regulate marriage laws, but there is a legal question as to whether they could actually dictate the content of marriage laws in terms of who marries whom. This could open an ugly door: interracial marriages, for example.
As for violating the First Amendment, the U.S. could move to the European position on marriage in which legal marriages are civil unions; and Church marriages are optional. That would solve the problem neatly, IMO.
This is Cheney's dilemma. I would not be surprised if, after the Vice President retires from politics, he were to change his fundamental political views to a more reality-based view of the world. Either that, or he would be forced to accept that it is partly his fault that his daughter is gay -- according to many on the Religious Right.Bullypulpit said:It was also Dick Cheney who stated the the issue was one of state's rights back in the 2000 election campaign during one of the debates. It's become a federal issue now that the religious right wing-nuts in the GOP are threatening to stay away from the polls in '06. Fine...Let 'em.
Matrixx8 said:Clearly, there are two other viable arguments on this issue. One is the equal rights clause of the 14th Amendment, in which case homosexual marriage would be a question of individual rights. The other is the 10th Amendment, in which case it would be a question of States' rights. (The states already have the constitutional authority to regulate marriage laws, but there is a legal question as to whether they could actually dictate the content of marriage laws in terms of who marries whom. This could open an ugly door: interracial marriages, for example.
As for violating the First Amendment, the U.S. could move to the European position on marriage in which legal marriages are civil unions; and Church marriages are optional. That would solve the problem neatly, IMO.
I meant the 14th Amendment as an issue of homosexual marriage, not just individual rights as they apply to gays and lesbians.GunnyL said:Homosexuals currently possess the same rights as normal people under the 14th Amendment, so there is no question.
And I agree it is a matter of State's rights; however, the lefty backdoor sliders (no pun intended) took it to the Supreme Court and involved the Fed Government because they could not otherwise circumvent the will of the people.
Matrixx8 said:I meant the 14th Amendment as an issue of homosexual marriage, not just individual rights as they apply to gays and lesbians.
By the way, by any rational evolutionary standard, homosexual are "normal". Homosexuality occurs among many different animal species.
But I agree with your basic point.
I beg to differ.GunnyL said:Homosexuality is not by ANY rational standard, evolutionary or not, normal. Sex is a biological function for procreation of the species. It requires a male and female. THAT is natural. Two males or two females is not.
Comparinf homosexuals to animals is a disservice to the animals. The difference between animals and man is cognitive reasoning/thought. Animals doing what feels good at the time that pro-homosexual folk claim are homosexual, are in reality just doing what feels good at the time. They STILL mate with the opposite gender to procreate.
True homosexual animals just die.
At first sight, homosexuality has little to do with reproduction. Nevertheless, many neo-Darwinian theoreticians think that human homosexuality may have had a procreative value, since it enabled the close kin of homosexuals to have more viable offspring than individuals lacking the support of homosexual siblings. In this article, however, we will defend an alternative hypothesis--originally put forward by Freud in "A phylogenetic phantasy"--namely that homosexuality evolved as a means to strengthen social bonds. Consequently, from an evolutionary point of view, homosexuality and heterosexuality have entirely distinct origins: there is no continuum from heterosexuality to homosexuality. Indeed, the natural history we propose shows that the intensity of the homosexual inclination has little or no predictive value with regard to the intensity of heterosexual tendencies. In fact, this may be a sound Darwinian way to understand sexual ambivalence. But if sexual ambivalence is a biological datum, one has to conclude that psychodynamic mechanisms are often needed in order to explain exclusive heterosexuality or exclusive homosexuality. -- See Biological Exuberance : Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity
Most of the more recent studies are not available via Google Scholar without subscription.Not surprisingly, there is evidence of bisexuality in the non-human animal kingdom as well. According to McBride and Hebb (1948), the mature male dolphin has perhaps as broad an array of self-stimulating methods as has the mature human male. The males show evidence of sexual excitation throughout the year. Much of this evidence is in the area of homosexual behavior. Both male and female homosexual behaviors are shown in the primates, but the former is more obvious and may go to apparent climax per anum. Female primate homosexual behavior seems to take the form of mutual grooming, including oral contacts with the external genitalia and occasional mounts. Cow elephants in one-sexed groups spend much time masturbating each other with their trunks (Morris, 1970). In some species of nonhuman primates, homosexual behavior occurs at least as frequently as heterosexual behavior (reviewed in Vasey, 1995). In his book called Biological Exuberance, Bagemihl (1999) describes female Bonobos wrapping their legs around another female emitting screams of enjoyment even when there is no paucity of potential male mates. Bagemihl asserted that the prevailing notion that homosexuality is uniquely human and only occurs in unnatural circumstances should be dispelled based in it being observed in 63 distinct mammalian species under natural circumstances.
Matrixx8 said:I beg to differ.
Evolutionary psychology explains this apparent paradox as follows:
Also see this source.
Most of the more recent studies are not available via Google Scholar without subscription.
Bagemihl's work is seminal is this regard.
