Gay Marriage to the Rescue!

[sitarro]

I'm always enthralled when I encounter someone who does not understand the scientific method, who seems to prefer self-induced fantasy to the facts at hand.

In this case, I posted some research on the subject. You posted nothing but a lot of hot air. I suggest you try to refute the information I sourced before your belief engine gets completely out of control.

I find it quite revealing that at the very top of your cute website are advertisements for pay pal donations, books and subsciptions. Typical of "science" and how it will tend to gravitate toward the conclusions wanted by the biggest contributor.....sounds like politicians that want more respect. Algore? Like I asked on another thread, if you believe in evolution, how can you believe homos are born that way?

 

[1549]

15, you need to find a better class of bar to hang in.

Personally, I would rather be in the middle aged sports bar. Most nights I just crave a beer, a tv, and a game to watch.

But sometimes I get dragged out with the crowd to a club in the city. I really do not enjoy dancing (kinda boring, but my girlfriend makes me do it). Anyways, the smell of weed is quite prevalent and we all know what goes down in the bathrooms.

 

[Abbey Normal]

Personally, I would rather be in the middle aged sports bar. Most nights I just crave a beer, a tv, and a game to watch.

But sometimes I get dragged out with the crowd to a club in the city. I really do not enjoy dancing (kinda boring, but my girlfriend makes me do it). Anyways, the smell of weed is quite prevalent and we all know what goes down in the bathrooms.

Bars were never appealing to me, with or without sluts and drugs. I used to like jazz clubs, though.

The worst bathroom scenes I ever saw were at rock concerts. Especially Dead concerts!

 

[1549]

Bars were never appealing to me, with or without sluts and drugs. I used to like jazz clubs, though.

The worst bathroom scenes I ever saw were at rock concerts. Especially Dead concerts!

Hold up...I was under the impression you are a female. Strange question ahead: what is your gender?

I thought you referred to yourself as a female once, but now I can not remember.

Now back to the subject. I have never been to a jazz club, but I hope to go sometime. The appeal of bars to me is that you can just hang out with your friends and talk and drink and glance at the TV. All of this can of course be done at home...but you know, it is different.

 

[Abbey Normal]

Hold up...I was under the impression you are a female. Strange question ahead: what is your gender?

I thought you referred to yourself as a female once, but now I can not remember.

Now back to the subject. I have never been to a jazz club, but I hope to go sometime. The appeal of bars to me is that you can just hang out with your friends and talk and drink and glance at the TV. All of this can of course be done at home...but you know, it is different.

All girl!

 

[1549]

All girl!

Ok that is what I thought. Is your name derived from your interest in Abbeys, a reference from the Simpsons, both or neither.

 

[Abbey Normal]

Ok that is what I thought. Is your name derived from your interest in Abbeys, a reference from the Simpsons, both or neither.

From Abbeys and Young Frankenstein

(I don't even watch the Simpsons. )

 

[1549]

From Abbeys and Young Frankenstein

(I don't even watch the Simpsons. )

Poor Frankenstein...if that little humpback could only read we would be singing a different tale.

 

[sitarro]

All girl!

The best kind of all girl I might add. I'm you huckalbeurra(spelling for Val Kilmer pronunciation only).

 

[sitarro]

From Abbeys and Young Frankenstein

(I don't even watch the Simpsons. )

That's FrankenSTEENE!

 

[Abbey Normal]

Poor Frankenstein...if that little humpback could only read we would be singing a different tale.

So true. My name might be Saint Abbey instead!

 

[Abbey Normal]

The best kind of all girl I might add. I'm you huckalbeurra(spelling for Val Kilmer pronunciation only).

Be still my heart! You remembered!

 

[1549]

So true. My name might be Saint Abbey instead!

:teeth:

 

[Bullypulpit]

I'm always enthralled when I encounter someone who does not understand the scientific method, who seems to prefer self-induced fantasy to the facts at hand.

In this case, I posted some research on the subject. You posted nothing but a lot of hot air. I suggest you try to refute the information I sourced before your belief engine gets completely out of control.

Since we are already derailed from the topic, or are we? Irrational beliefs seem to determine the views of those opposed to same gender couples.

A good article. Part of the problem also lies in the failure to pay heed to the relationships between events over time. This failure results in the separation of these relationships between events. As a result, we are presented with, apparently, uncaused events unconnected to anything coming before or after. Thus we are faced with mysterious and uncaused events which are simply a failure to understand or observe the causal relationships to preceeding and following events. The upshot is that we are then faced with unecessary and unwarranted epistemological confusion that only furthers the irrationality so many seem to take comfort in.

 

[Matrixx8]

Since we are already derailed from the topic, or are we? Irrational beliefs seem to determine the views of those opposed to same gender couples.

A good article. Part of the problem also lies in the failure to pay heed to the relationships between events over time. This failure results in the separation of these relationships between events. As a result, we are presented with, apparently, uncaused events unconnected to anything coming before or after. Thus we are faced with mysterious and uncaused events which are simply a failure to understand or observe the causal relationships to preceeding and following events. The upshot is that we are then faced with unecessary and unwarranted epistemological confusion that only furthers the irrationality so many seem to take comfort in.

Interesting points, BP.

It seems clear that many people want to believe certain things, based on pre-conceived notions. On the topic of homosexual marriage, for example, many seem to feel threatened. As a result, they disconnect from the basic issue of whether all humans should have equal rights and project the argument into a "definition of marriage" detour.

It seems clear to me that the federal government has no role to play in deciding the rules for issuing marriage licenses -- apart from the 14th amendment. It is therefore up to the states. But the states are bound by the same constitutional rules. The only question is whether they can deny equal rights to homosexual partners.

And make no mistake about it, the proposed constitutional amendment to prohibit some people from marrying simply because of gender would be a denial, not an affirmation, of rights.

 

[Matrixx8]

I find it quite revealing that at the very top of your cute website are advertisements for pay pal donations, books and subsciptions. Typical of "science" and how it will tend to gravitate toward the conclusions wanted by the biggest contributor.....sounds like politicians that want more respect. Algore? Like I asked on another thread, if you believe in evolution, how can you believe homos are born that way?

Somehow I don't think that associating scientific data with commercial advertising constitutes proof of anything. If you're suggesting that scientists prostitute themselves for money, your argument is not very sound. There are people in any profession who can be "bought", but they do not represent their profession.

Unless you think that Ken Lay is a typical business person and Richard Nixon was a typical politician. And even if you think that, your above statement does not offer anything other than speculation to back up such a belief.

As for evolution and studies involving homosexuality, research in this field is relatively new. Since homosexual activity among other animals has been documented, most recently in this study, it would seem likely that there is a biological key to homosexual activity among humans.

However, there is no clear evidence of this as yet.

Nevertheless, irrespective of what causes such feelings -- and has caused them since the earliest human societies --, it does not affect the basic question of whether two people who are in love should be allowed to marry under the same circumstances as any other two people who are in love -- or profess to be.

It all seems rather elementary to me, Watson.

 

[sitarro]

Somehow I don't think that associating scientific data with commercial advertising constitutes proof of anything. If you're suggesting that scientists prostitute themselves for money, your argument is not very sound. There are people in any profession who can be "bought", but they do not represent their profession.

Unless you think that Ken Lay is a typical business person and Richard Nixon was a typical politician. And even if you think that, your above statement does not offer anything other than speculation to back up such a belief.

As for evolution and studies involving homosexuality, research in this field is relatively new. Since homosexual activity among other animals has been documented, most recently in this study, it would seem likely that there is a biological key to homosexual activity among humans.

However, there is no clear evidence of this as yet.

Nevertheless, irrespective of what causes such feelings -- and has caused them since the earliest human societies --, it does not affect the basic question of whether two people who are in love should be allowed to marry under the same circumstances as any other two people who are in love -- or profess to be.

It all seems rather elementary to me, Watson.

Looks like the same argument you WILL be getting from NAMBLA and any other nut case group that wants to legitamize the perverse crap they do. You can use 4 legged animals to justify your mental problems, I don't buy it. I am not a Ram (even though I was born in late March and astrological goofs refer to me as an Aries). I am a thinking, rationalizing, normal human being.... I have nothing in common with a sheep. Even if you believe this crap, people aren't equal, murderers and rapist aren't equal to me. And Pedophiles, bigamist, racists, polygamists and any other mists aren't equal either. What are you going to say to the brother and sister that want to wed?

As imperfect as marriage is, that isn't an excuse to make it worse.

"OHSU researchers discovered an irregularly shaped, densely packed cluster of nerve cells in the hypothalamus of the sheep brain, which they named the ovine sexually dimorphic nucleus or oSDN because it is a different size in rams than in ewes. The hypothalamus is the part of the brain that controls metabolic activities and reproductive functions.

The oSDN in rams that preferred females was "significantly" larger and contained more neurons than in male-oriented rams and ewes. In addition, the oSDN of the female-oriented rams expressed higher levels of aromatase, a substance that converts testosterone to estradiol so the androgen hormone can facilitate typical male sexual behaviors. Aromatase expression was no different between male-oriented rams and ewes."

This would seem to say that the "homosexual" sheep have less developed brains of normal, reproducing sheep......are you going to be the one that tells homosexuals that their brains are less developed?

 

[Matrixx8]

Looks like the same argument you WILL be getting from NAMBLA and any other nut case group that wants to legitamize the perverse crap they do. You can use 4 legged animals to justify your mental problems, I don't buy it.

Just to set that lazy "your" usage straight, I am heterosexual and have been married for 45 years, so I have no particular interest in this issue, other than what I consider to be equal rights for minority views.

I am not a Ram (even though I was born in late March and astrological goofs refer to me as an Aries). I am a thinking, rationalizing, normal human being.... I have nothing in common with a sheep. Even if you believe this crap, people aren't equal, murderers and rapist aren't equal to me. And Pedophiles, bigamist, racists, polygamists and any other mists aren't equal either. What are you going to say to the brother and sister that want to wed?

None of the above describe homosexuals as such. As for brothers and sisters marrying, there are medical reasons why this is not a good idea, particularly as regards the rights of children whose chances of being born with defects are much greater among close kin.

As imperfect as marriage is, that isn't an excuse to make it worse.

I'll call that and raise you one "I don't believe that marriage is even necessary."

"OHSU researchers discovered an irregularly shaped, densely packed cluster of nerve cells in the hypothalamus of the sheep brain, which they named the ovine sexually dimorphic nucleus or oSDN because it is a different size in rams than in ewes. The hypothalamus is the part of the brain that controls metabolic activities and reproductive functions.

The oSDN in rams that preferred females was "significantly" larger and contained more neurons than in male-oriented rams and ewes. In addition, the oSDN of the female-oriented rams expressed higher levels of aromatase, a substance that converts testosterone to estradiol so the androgen hormone can facilitate typical male sexual behaviors. Aromatase expression was no different between male-oriented rams and ewes."

This would seem to say that the "homosexual" sheep have less developed brains of normal, reproducing sheep......are you going to be the one that tells homosexuals that their brains are less developed?

Bigger is not always better, only different. Neanderthals had larger brains than homo sapiens but they were not smarter (in terms of survival).

Homosexual relations are a fact of nature. IMHO, America is fighting a losing battle in trying to ignore this reality.

 

[sitarro]

Just to set that lazy "your" usage straight, I am heterosexual and have been married for 45 years, so I have no particular interest in this issue, other than what I consider to be equal rights for minority views.

I wasn't refering to you necessarily, more the person that will try to use the argument that rams screw each other so it must be natural. Cats bath their relatives and lick there asses and find it perfectly natural......so what? Using anything that animals do as justification for homosexual marriage is weak...period.

None of the above describe homosexuals as such. As for brothers and sisters marrying, there are medical reasons why this is not a good idea, particularly as regards the rights of children whose chances of being born with defects are much greater among close kin.

I'm not saying they are per say but then again all could be. Change the definition of marriage and you open the door to changing the definition for any group that wants it in the name of equal rights. That is the problem I have with it. I think if you can find any real statistics it is obvious that homosexuality isn't a wise choice health wise. So that would be your argument to the siblings that want to marry? I am sure the first thing they would say is they won't have children and homosexuals lead a much more dangerous lifestyle.

I'll call that and raise you one "I don't believe that marriage is even necessary."

I don't either, I'm 52 and never been married and yet I have the utmost respect for the promise that is made in the marriage vows. My parents were married 57 years till death forced them to part....my mother is still very devoted to my father 3 years after his death. The only real reason homosexuals are demanding marriage is to attempt to justify their animal behavior.

Bigger is not always better, only different. Neanderthals had larger brains than homo sapiens but they were not smarter (in terms of survival).

This argument is pathetic. The normal rams that had the instinct to reproduce and continue their species is more developed in size and neuron
complexity besides the chemical differences. The fact that they are the ones that act in a way that continues their species would set the standard for a normal brain.

Homosexual relations are a fact of nature. IMHO, America is fighting a losing battle in trying to ignore this reality.

Because people are "born that way" is no reason to change the definition of marriage to suit them. Why shouldn't we allow 1 women and 20 men or vice versa, still haven't heard how they will be answered. If homosexuals want to grant their current partner of the day some type of right they can take out their little homo yellow pages and find a homo attorney and get it done homo-legally. The mockery of the marriage vows that would be made by most of these ass licks would be something else real marriage doesn't need, go to a gay pride parade to get some idea what we would be seeing everyday. If you think idiots going to Vegas to be married by Elvis is bad........

 

[Matrixx8]

I wasn't refering to you necessarily, more the person that will try to use the argument that rams screw each other so it must be natural. Cats bath their relatives and lick there asses and find it perfectly natural......so what? Using anything that animals do as justification for homosexual marriage is weak...period.

By definition, "natural" means anything that occurs in nature. In that sense, homosexual and bisexual behavior are natural. Since humans are animals, scientists study animal behavior to explain human behavior. The relationships may be approximate (as in nutritian), correlative (as in reproduction) or even emotional and psychological, compared to other primates.

I'm not saying they are per say but then again all could be. Change the definition of marriage and you open the door to changing the definition for any group that wants it in the name of equal rights. That is the problem I have with it. I think if you can find any real statistics it is obvious that homosexuality isn't a wise choice health wise. So that would be your argument to the siblings that want to marry? I am sure the first thing they would say is they won't have children and homosexuals lead a much more dangerous lifestyle.

These days the term "homosexual" usually includes both gays and lesbians. Also, there is no reason to believe that homosexuals are more promiscuous than heterosexuals. As for siblings wanting to marry, why not? The idea of marriage being something traditional is hard to defend, since tradition is value neutral. For a few hundred years there was a tradition of burning witches at the stake, but few would consider it a rational or just policy these days.

I can understand the argument from a religious standpoint. But even there, there are churches that are willing to marry homosexual couples. That is a private matter. But civil marriage should be open to any couple that wants to live together and enjoy the legal benefits and protections of such arrangements. While there are probably some legitimate exceptions (particularly where such unions might result in children), why should the state be able to dictate sexual orientation or discriminate against it? That seems to me like a case where the majority oversteps its authority. It was tried in the past with interracial marriage and it didn't hold constitutional water.

The only real reason homosexuals are demanding marriage is to attempt to justify their animal behavior.

That seems unlikely, since they are free to practice their "animal behavior" in most democratic societies without being married. The only place where homosexuals are not free to be homosexuals is in certain Muslim nations.

This argument is pathetic. The normal rams that had the instinct to reproduce and continue their species is more developed in size and neuron
complexity besides the chemical differences. The fact that they are the ones that act in a way that continues their species would set the standard for a normal brain.

Nevertheless, brain size is not a determinate factor.

For example:

The brain of the sperm whale weighs 7,800g, the elephant's weighs 7,500g, man's weighs 1,500g, the dolphin's 840g, and the brain of a mouse weighs 0,4g. If these figures are used to determine intelligence, then the sperm whale and the elephant are five times as intelligent as man, who in turn is twice as intelligent as the dolphin, which in turn is 2,000 times as intelligent as a mouse. Should we rank animals in order of how large their brains are in relation to their body weight, then the mouse would come out on top with its brain comprising 3.2%, the dolphin's 0.9% and the sperm whale's 0,021%. Neither absolute brain weight nor the relationship between brain weight and body size provide us with sensible criteria for comparing the intelligence of different species.

Because people are "born that way" is no reason to change the definition of marriage to suit them. Why shouldn't we allow 1 women and 20 men or vice versa, still haven't heard how they will be answered. If homosexuals want to grant their current partner of the day some type of right they can take out their little homo yellow pages and find a homo attorney and get it done homo-legally. The mockery of the marriage vows that would be made by most of these ass licks would be something else real marriage doesn't need, go to a gay pride parade to get some idea what we would be seeing everyday. If you think idiots going to Vegas to be married by Elvis is bad........

That note of homophobia only weakens your position. Why does it bother you that some people have different tastes, interests, sexual orientations? That kind of thing doesn't affect me or my life one iota. My children grew up in the homo-friendly country of the Netherlands and they learned to treat all people with respect. Homos are humans first and foremost.

I agree that sexual orientation should be a private matter, not on public display.

Polygomy and polyandry are also natural. Someday they will probably also be widely accepted, if for no other reason than that women outlive men; or because of natural disasters that decimate a particular male or female population. This is happening in Africa at the moment, with many more women dying of AIDS than men.

I tend to judge everything by its evolutionary utility. Homosexual behavior may serve an evolutionary purpose for at least two reasons. One, homosexuality is a birth control factor in an overpopulated world. Two, same-sex couples provide foster homes for orphaned children and serve as extended family units for heterosexual couples.

You're certainly right to think that none of these things will happen until society is ready for them. In Canada and most of Europe, sexual orientation is now protected by law. Homosexual marriages are legal in a growing number of countries. Employers cannot fire people based on sexual orientation.

And I have no doubt that it will also happen in America in due time. Like rock and roll (which was once considered the "devil's music"), times change.