The Gay Fray

[Baron Max]

I think Baron really is just angry that he can't marry his goat and two sheep.

Well, I am pissed off!! I mean the damned courthouse won't give me a marriage license to marry my goat and two sheep. You're pissed off 'cause you can't marry some guy, why can't I be pissed off that I can't marry my goat and two sheep? You're discriminating against me!!

Anyway, there is no special treatment here. It's allowing equal rights, not special rights.

Nope. As I've said before ...hetero males can't marry other males; gay males can't marry other males. That's perfectly, precisely the same, exact, equal rights under the law.

..., and that right is to marry a person you love and are attracted to.

Marriage has nothing to do with whether you love someone or are attracted to them. Marriage is a union between a man and woman.

If gays want to form a union of some kind, I'm all for it. I just don't want them to call it marriage ....'cause marriage is something else entirely.

Baron Max

 

[shorty_37]

shorty_37 I do have an issue with them adopting children though.

There are tons of studies showing gays and lesbians make good parents and for you homo phobes, their kids, natural or adopted, are no more likely to be gay than any one else.

I don't know about these TONS of studies you are talking about. Are there really that many homosexuals or lesbians that have adopted children that they have TONS of studies of the outcomes to fall back on?

I am not saying that the children will automatically become gay if they are raised by same sex couples. What I am concerned with is the shit these kids will have to deal with growing up. Like showing up at the school with their 2 dads or 2 moms. Kids can be especially cruel of kids that are different, you know that. I just think that some of these kids have to take on a lot more issues, harrassment etc then they would with same sex parents. I remember watching on Oprah a couple yrs ago kids were on that were in same sex family households. Some of them broke down to tears talking about the harressment, bullying etc they get at school. It is sad they have to go through but that is just how the world is, if you want to admit it or not. Some were the result of being in a situation where they had a mom and dad but then one of them came out of the closet, divorced and got together with a same sex partner. There were only very few of these kids that were OK with it. Most of them wished they had what they called a " Normal" family.
When you talk about these "TONS" of studies, I would like to see TONS of studies where these children are able to give their honest feelings about the whole situation and growing up in a same sex parent situation. :shrug:

I am not questioning the gay couples ability to raise the kids at all. There are good parents and bad. Some heterosexual couples shouldn't raise kids either.

 

[Asguard]

shorty_37, that will never change as long as its alowed to continue. I mean should the state take kids away from there biological parents just because after the marrige (or one night stand) ends one partner finds that they love someone of the same sex, symply because the kids MIGHT get teased at school???

What about kids with disabled parents?
or kids from other cultures?

there is a huge problem with basing wether a person can be a good parent on wether currently its concidered the "norm". Once it is done it will become widly accepted like interracial relationships and single dads have been. Until it happens however, people like baron max will keep indoctronting there children the way they do and there children wont have the counterbalancing influance of what they themselves see therefor the cycle will continue

 

[Tiassa]

Consent?

Well, I am pissed off!! I mean the damned courthouse won't give me a marriage license to marry my goat and two sheep. You're pissed off 'cause you can't marry some guy, why can't I be pissed off that I can't marry my goat and two sheep? You're discriminating against me!!

Well, Max, if consent has no meaning to you, be as pissed off as you want.

In the meantime, perhaps you could fill us in on the details of consent in bestiality?

Or, perhaps that's a bad idea. Nonetheless, it seems a fundamental part of your argument.

 

[swarm]

Studies examining children raised by a gay parent or parents have shown no difference in developmental outcomes as compared with children raised by heterosexual parents. Critics, however, contend these studies are politicized with sample sizes that are too small to be conclusive.

In an April 2001 article in the American Sociological Review, researchers Judith Stacey and Timothy Biblarz of the University of Southern California reported the results of their examination of 21 studies on gay parenting. Stacey and Biblarz found that although "the authors of all 21 studies almost uniformly claim to find no differences in measures of parenting or child outcomes," their examination of the data suggests that the children of gay parents demonstrate some differences in gender behavior and preferences. Lesbian mothers reported their children, especially daughters, are less likely to conform to cultural gender norms in dress, play, and behavior, and are more likely to aspire to nontraditional gender occupations, such as doctors, lawyers, or engineers. They also discovered that although the children of gay and lesbian parents are no more likely to identify themselves as gay, lesbian, or bisexual than the children of heterosexual parents, they are more likely to consider or experiment with same-sex relationships during young adulthood.

Stacey and Biblarz also found that the children of homosexual parents show no difference in levels of self-esteem, anxiety, depression, behavior problems, or social performance, but do show a higher level of affection, responsiveness, and concern for younger children and "seem to exhibit impressive psychological strength."

Gay parents were found to be more likely to equally share child care and household duties, and the children of gay partners reported closer relationships to the parent who was not their primary caregiver than did the children of heterosexual couples. "These findings imply that lesbian coparents may enjoy greater parental compatibility and achieve particularly high quality parenting skills, which may help explain the striking findings on parent-child relationships."

Stacey and Biblarz point out that the differences they found should not be considered deficits. "They either favor the children with lesbigay parents, are secondary effects of social prejudice, or represent 'just a difference' of the sort democratic societies should respect and protect." They go on to stress that categorizing parents as gay or heterosexual "erroneously impl[ies] that a parent's sexual orientation is the decisive characteristic of his or her parenting." They suggest that sexual orientation only matters because homophobia and discrimination say it matters.
http://www.cwla.org/articles/cv0201gayadopt.htm

 

[swarm]

That was just the first article I pulled up from a tremendous list. Bigots have been freaking out about this issue for decades and there have been a lot of studies and there is no support for complaints against homosexual parents on the basis of their homosexuality.

shorty_37 What I am concerned with is the shit these kids will have to deal with growing up.

Dealing with shit is part of growing up. I dealt with a lot of shit growing up and I was in a traditional family. But I doubt you are really concerned with the kids. That just seems like a facile rationalization for your bigotry.

Other studies:
The great majority of studies published in the past 20 years conclude that there are no notable developmental differences between children raised by heterosexual parents and those raised by lesbian and gay parents. Along the same lines, several medical and mental health professional associations, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychoanalytic Association, and the American Psychological Association have issued formal statements generally supporting equal access to parenting and adoption for gay men and lesbians.

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2002/olrdata/jud/rpt/2002-R-0879.htm

A study released Thursday by a non-partisan adoption group says that states need to tap into the gay and lesbian community to reduce the number of children up for adoption.
...Researchers estimate over 14,000 children live in lesbian- or gay-led foster families today, while at least 4 percent of all adopted children in the U.S. - about 65,000 - are being raised by gay and lesbian parents...studies on children dating back 25 years conclude that children raised by gay and lesbian non-adoptive parents fare as well as those reared by heterosexual parents.

http://www.365gay.com/news/study-gays-important-resource-in-reducing-children-in-state-care/

And finally here is a whole list of studies from the APA: http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/publications/lgpstspec.html

 

[swarm]

Tiassa perhaps you could fill us in on the details of consent in bestiality?

Are you shuggesting Fluffy is a non consenting sheep? Surely you don't think Baron Max is a sheep rapist?!

 

[Tiassa]

Fluffy?

Are you shuggesting Fluffy is a non consenting sheep? Surely you don't think Baron Max is a sheep rapist?!

Sheep? Goat? I thought its name was Philbert.

Anyway, you have named the problem exactly. Homophobes have for years tried to link homosexuality with other things, typically pedophilia, bestiality, and necrophilia. In all the years I've faced this question, not a single one of those homophobes have explained to me where consent fits into the issue.

Then again, the question was first put in front of me by Christians, whose holy book just happens to be pro-rape. I don't recall that our resident goatfucker is actually a Christian, though. Doesn't matter, in the end. Christians don't hold a patent, or anything, on rape advocacy or ignorance of consent.

 

[swarm]

Now David killed her husband first.

 

[Balerion]

Well, I am pissed off!! I mean the damned courthouse won't give me a marriage license to marry my goat and two sheep. You're pissed off 'cause you can't marry some guy, why can't I be pissed off that I can't marry my goat and two sheep? You're discriminating against me!!

You can be pissed! Just don't stand too close to the goat, cuz you might get pissed on.

Nope. As I've said before ...hetero males can't marry other males; gay males can't marry other males. That's perfectly, precisely the same, exact, equal rights under the law.

Wrong. Straight men don't want to marry other men. They want to marry women. And they have that right. If the world was gay, and you weren't, wouldn't you want the right to marry a woman despite the fact that everyone else wanted to marry within their sex? Of course you would!

Marriage has nothing to do with whether you love someone or are attracted to them. Marriage is a union between a man and woman.

But most people get married because they're in love. It is a social institution, and in many cases, a big help in your professional career (married people are far more likely to be promoted than unmarried people).

And let's not flatter ourselves here...marriage is not always a union between a man and a woman. First of all, it used to be most often a union between a man and a prepubescent girl in exchange for some livestock. Second, there are three states in the USA that totally disagree with you.

If gays want to form a union of some kind, I'm all for it. I just don't want them to call it marriage ....'cause marriage is something else entirely.

My point is that it should not be your decision to make.

 

[Baron Max]

Well, Max, if consent has no meaning to you, be as pissed off as you want. In the meantime, perhaps you could fill us in on the details of consent in bestiality?

Well, let's think about that issue. Y'all seem perfectly content for animals to be killed, butchered, cooked and eaten without their consent, so why do you get all upset when my goat and sheep can't consent to my love? They live in an airconditioned home, have all the food and water they wish, they sleep on warm, padded beds, ....and I keep them from being killed, butchered, cooked and eaten.

Which do you think is the better life for goats and sheep?

Baron Max

 

[Baron Max]

Wrong. Straight men don't want to marry other men.

But the point is that they aren't permitted to marry men by law! And so, as I've said numerous times ....gays are equal under the law to hetero males.

But see, we're back to the same thing ...y'all gays want SPECIAL rights, above and beyond that of regular, normal males. And that ain't right.

If the world was gay, and you weren't, wouldn't you want the right to marry a woman despite the fact that everyone else wanted to marry within their sex? Of course you would!

I don't know why marriage would be such a big deal ...we could just live together happily everafter in a gingerbread house. Or, if the legal system could come up with some contracts to make things easier for us, then we'd do that. But why would I want our love and union to be called something that it wasn't in your gay world? Does the term "marriage" mean so much to y'all?

My point is that it should not be your decision to make.

And it should be the gays' decision???? Woudn't that be like letting criminals decide what's illegal or not? ....LOL!

No, it's a society's decision to make ...and we should do it by vote. When should we set it to a vote?

Baron Max

 

[Balerion]

But the point is that they aren't permitted to marry men by law! And so, as I've said numerous times ....gays are equal under the law to hetero males.

That's the most backwards, ignorant, and just plain wrong interpretation of the law that I've ever read. That's like saying if we both get five strawberries, we are being treated equally, even if I happen to be allergic to strawberries.

But see, we're back to the same thing ...y'all gays want SPECIAL rights, above and beyond that of regular, normal males. And that ain't right.

I don't know how else to put it for you that would make you understand that there would be no "special" rights. It would be equal rights for the first time in this country's history, at least as far as homosexuals are concerned.

Since I can't make you listen to reason and use logic, I'll just assume you were fighting integration, too.

I don't know why marriage would be such a big deal ...we could just live together happily everafter in a gingerbread house. Or, if the legal system could come up with some contracts to make things easier for us, then we'd do that. But why would I want our love and union to be called something that it wasn't in your gay world? Does the term "marriage" mean so much to y'all?

You say you don't know why it's such a big deal, and then you turn around and call it a "union" and want it to be protected from homosexuals, as if they'd damage the name.

The fact of the matter is that just like "separate but equal", this is just another way that a group of Americans is being oppressed by the ignorant in charge. And for the record, you and I live in the same world as our gay brothers and sisters. I know you wish it wasn't true, just like you wish you didn't live in the same world as blacks and Mexicans...but it is.

And it should be the gays' decision???? Woudn't that be like letting criminals decide what's illegal or not?

That right there proves you have the IQ of a chair. How can you possibly make these comparisons? Is that really how the world looks in your simple little mind?

And yes, it should be their decision if they want to marry, just like it is my decision if I want to.

No, it's a society's decision to make ...and we should do it by vote. When should we set it to a vote?

Consider the implications of what you're asking; By 2040, whites will be a minority in this country. You sure you want to start making this a full democracy?

My whole point was that it shouldn't be anyone's business what two consenting adults want to do with their lives. Their love is as legitimate as yours is, and they deserve every right that you have. And in truth, society is speaking. The Northeast has two states that have legalized it, and California has, as well. Gay marriage happens to be legally recognized in New York, which is a huge step forward towards gay married couples being able to move around the region without having to worry if their shared rights are void from state-to-state.

Your kind is losing, Baron.

 

[Tiassa]

And yet, the goathumper hates freedom?

Y'all seem perfectly content for animals to be killed, butchered, cooked and eaten without their consent, so why do you get all upset when my goat and sheep can't consent to my love?

Quit avoiding the question, Max.

In the first place, you are welcome to go prove that point and try to convince a hungry lion not to kill the wildabeest or whatever without its dinner's consent. Let us know how that one goes.

More to the point, however, are you proposing that consent has no place in marriage?

Which do you think is the better life for goats and sheep?

Well, if you were talking about marrying a cow, or maybe a pig, the point might be directly relevant to, well, something.

To the other, one condition is a life, the other is a death.

A couple other things:

And it should be the gays' decision???? Woudn't that be like letting criminals decide what's illegal or not? ....LOL!

Actually, no. Being gay isn't illegal anymore. See, that's the way the law works. In the United States in general, and now, as we've seen in the states.

Telling someone they cannot marry the person they love because that person is the wrong sex is problematic in terms of equal protection under the law.

No, it's a society's decision to make ...and we should do it by vote. When should we set it to a vote?

Already did. And twelve states gave their say. And now that say, being put under the scrutiny of the supreme law of the land, turns out to violate the Constitution. You can no more prevent gays from getting married than you can make it illegal to marry a Christian.

Welcome to America, goathumper. Admit it, you hate freedom. It's okay. You're allowed to say it.

 

[Baron Max]

More to the point, however, are you proposing that consent has no place in marriage?

Well, you're supporting laws that prevent me from marrying my goats and sheep by using an innane ideal of consent ...while you refuse to demand consent of the goats and sheep that you allow to be killed and eaten!

Why won't you support my right to marry my goat and sheep? If you want me to support the right of gays to marry other males, then you should want to support my right to marry my goat and sheep. Or are you wanting to discriminate against me, yet demand special rights for gays? And what of siblings marrying? And sons and mothers? And daughters and fathers? Or are you wanting special rights for yourself, even while discriminating against those other groups of consenting people?

Telling someone they cannot marry the person they love because that person is the wrong sex is problematic in terms of equal protection under the law.

Well, there are other laws, too, that come into play in much the same way. We don't allow 15-yr old kids to marry ...that's discriminatory according to age. We don't allow women to marry their fathers, nor do we allow men to marry their mothers ...and that's discrimination, too.

You can no more prevent gays from getting married than you can make it illegal to marry a Christian.

We prevent underage kids from marrying. We prevent sons from marrying their mothers. We prevent daughters from marrying their fathers. We prevent sisters from marrying their brothers. See? There are lots of things that we prevent that should be, in the same ideal as gays, equal rights.

Admit it, you hate freedom.

I do! I hate freedom that restricts my right to kill a person who angers me or abuses me. I hate freedom that restricts my rights to exact my own brand of revenge on those who do me wrong. I hate freedom that forces me to pay taxes for things that I don't want or need. I hate freedom that prevents me from spewing forth racial hatred whenever I want, against whoever I want. I hate freedom that forces me to get a license to buy a gun for my own protection. I hate freedom that forces me to drive my car at a restricted speed. .... And I hate freedom that won't let me marry my goat and sheep! Yeah, I hate freedom!

Baron Max

 

[Baron Max]

I don't know how else to put it for you that would make you understand that there would be no "special" rights.

Nope, you're seeking special rights for gays and lesbians. It's plain and simple as I've stated several times before.

Baron Max

 

[Asguard]

god sake, barron your a bigot and whats WORSE is that your an ignorent moron.

Informed consent is a legal condition whereby a person can be said to have given consent based upon an appreciation and understanding of the facts, implications and future consequences of an action. In order to give informed consent, the individual concerned must have adequate reasoning faculties and be in possession of all relevant facts at the time consent is given. Impairments to reasoning and judgement which would make it impossible for someone to give informed consent include such factors as severe mental retardation, severe mental illness, intoxication, severe sleep deprivation, Alzheimer's disease, or being in a coma.

Some acts cannot legally take place because of a lack of informed consent. In cases where an individual is considered unable to give informed consent, another person is generally authorized to give consent on their behalf e.g. parents or legal guardians of a child and caregivers for the mentally ill. However, if a severely injured patient is brought to hospital in an unconscious state and no-one is available to give informed consent, doctors will give whatever treatment is necessary to save the patient's life (according to the Hippocratic oath) which might involve major surgery e.g. amputation.

In cases where an individual is provided limited facts, serious ethical issues may arise. Examples of this in a clinical trial in medical research are anticipated and prevented by an ethics committee or Institutional Review Board.

Issues surrounding assessment of consent
Informed consent can be complex to evaluate, because neither expressions of consent, nor expressions of understanding of implications, necessarily mean that full adult consent was in fact given, nor that full comprehension of relevant issues is internally digested. Many times consent is implied within the usual subtleties of human communication, rather than explicitly negotiated verbally or in writing. In some cases consent is legally prevented from ever being possible, even if the person protests they do indeed understand and wish. There are also structured instruments for evaluating capacity to give informed consent, although no ideal instrument presently exists.

There is thus always a degree to which informed consent must be assumed or inferred based upon observation, or knowledge, or legal reliance. This especially is the case in sexual or relational issues. In medical or formal circumstances explicit agreement by means of signature which may normally be relied upon legally, regardless of actual consent, is the norm.

Brief examples of each of the above:

• A person may verbally agree to something from fear, perceived social pressure, or psychological difficulty in asserting their true feelings. The person requesting the action may honestly be unaware of this and believe the consent is genuine, and rely upon it. Consent is expressed, but not internally given.
  
• A person may state they understand the implications of some action, as part of their consent, but in fact have failed to appreciate the possible consequences fully and later deny the validity of their consent for this reason. Understanding needed for informed consent is stated to be present but is in fact (through ignorance) not present.
  
• A person may move from friendship to sexual contact on the basis of body language and apparent receptivity, but very few people on a date that results in sexual contact have explicitly asked the other if their consent is informed, if they do in fact fully understand what is implied, and all potential conditions or results. Informed consent is implied (or assumed unless disproved) but not stated explicitly.
  
• A person below the age of consent may agree to sex, knowing all the consequences, but their consent is deemed invalid as they are deemed to be a child unaware of the issues and thus incapable of being informed consent. Individual is barred from legally giving informed consent, despite what they may feel (1)
  
• In some countries (notably the United Kingdom), individuals may not consent to injuries inflicted upon them, and so a person practicing sadism and masochism upon a consenting partner may be deemed to have caused actual bodily harm without consent, actual consent notwithstanding. Individual is barred from legally giving informed consent, despite what they may feel (2). See also Spanner case and 'consensual non-consensuality'.
  
• A person signs a legal release form for a medical procedure, and later feels they did not really consent. Unless they can show actual misinformation, the release is usually persuasive or conclusive in law, in that the clinician may rely legally upon it for consent. In formal circumstances, a written consent will usually legally override later denial of informed consent (unless obtained by misrepresentation) .
  
• A person or institution (e.g. a school or childcare professional) exposes a minor to non-age-appropriate material, in any media format, without the expressed informed consent of the minor's parent or legal guardian. Informed consent in this instance goes to the argument of competency on the part of the minor. An example would be the showing of an R rated movie to a 12 year old by an educational institution without the informed consent of the parent or legal guardian.

Competency
The ability to give informed consent will be governed by a general requirement of competency. In common law jurisdictions, adults are presumed competent to consent. This presumption can be rebutted, for instance, in circumstances of mental illness or other incompetence. This may be prescribed in legislation or based on a common-law standard of inability to understand the nature of the procedure. In cases of incompetent adults, informed consent--from the patients or from their families--is not required. Rather, the medical practitioner must simply act in the patient's best interests in order to avoid negligence liability.

By contrast, 'minors' (which may be defined differently in different jurisdictions) are generally presumed incompetent to consent. In some jurisdictions (e.g. much of the U.S.), this is a strict standard. In other jurisdictions (e.g. England, Australia, Canada), this presumption may be rebutted through proof that the minor is ‘mature’ (the ‘Gillick standard’). In cases of incompetent minors, informed consent is usually required from the parent (rather than the 'best interests standard') although a parens patriae order may apply (allowing the court to dispense with parental consent in cases of refusal).

Sex
The question of whether informed consent needs to be formally given before sexual intercourse or other sexual activity, and whether this consent can (and must be able to) be withdrawn at any time during the act, is an issue which is currently being discussed in the United States in regard to rape and sexual assault legislation. For example, people who perform sexual acts on sleeping people are not given consent unless the initiator have given prior informed consent to the act within a reasonable recency, and are assumed to be consenting during the act and to not prosecute for it when waking up. This is also an issue in rape fantasy enaction which is often discussed by a "ravishment community" of participants (a subset of the BDSM community) who advocate extensive prior negotiation and planning. The issue of prior informed consent may also come up if the legality behind consensual necrophilia is ever further explored.

While children may be able to give consent, a more complex question applies in terms of informed consent: whether children are developmentally and otherwise able to give informed consent, in particular to an adult, bearing in mind power relationships, maturity, experience and mental development. For this and other reasons most states have an age of consent under which a child is deemed unable to give consent. As evaluation of maturity, mental maturity, child development, child communication, and child intelligence are further explored, this may be based on psychological and medical evaluation of status for sexual activity instead of chronological age.

Animals are not usually considered able to give informed consent in a legal sense (although advocates and some ethologists argue they have the capability to agree and strongly solicit such activity), and partly for this reason, but more usually due to concerns for morality and abuse, bestiality is illegal in many jurisdictions. As animal communication methods and evaluation of animal intelligence and animal sexuality changes, this may also change.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informed_consent

 

[Baron Max]

god sake, barron your a bigot and whats WORSE is that your an ignorent moron.

Are you allowed to call me such names as that on this forum?

As to wiki, do you believe everything that you find on that site?

As to consent, I still want to know if animals consent to be killed, butchered and eaten? If not, then why would you hold it necessary for them to give their consent to live happily in my home?

Regular, normal males can't marry other males. Gay males can't marry other males. See? There is no discrimination whatsoever ...it's perfect equality under that law.

Ahh, but wait ...y'all want to CHANGE the law so as to recognizes special, odd, strange, perverted sex practices.

So, .....if you can change laws to suit your own special, odd, strange, perverted sex practices, then the law should also change to permit my own special, odd, strange, perverted sex practices. Huh? Huh??? Huh??

Baron Max

 

[swarm]

baron max
Why won't you support my right to marry my goat and sheep?

Alas your love for fluffy is a tragic one. But if ever there are brave people like you who will stand up for their sheepish affections, then maybe you and fluffy can stop living in sin.

You see there are millions of Americans who want men and women who love another person the right to marry them. But you are the only sheep lover brave enough to come forward.

Since no one but you cares about loving sheep its what is called a red herring.

But I support you. Grab your handfuls of fluffy warmth and baa for your freedom to love who you choose.

 

[swarm]

Tiassa
Sheep? Goat? I thought its name was Philbert.

Fluffy is the sheep. Philbert is the goat.

But Philbert is a male.

Baron Max would never suggest his homosexual goat love be sanctified in marriage.

He will marry Fluffy and keep Philbert as his homosexual goat love slave.