The definitive word on "gay"marriage

[Dr Grump]

You can't see how gay marriage would have impact upon our social/political system?

No. It would have none. If you care to point out what it would do to the social/political system be my guest. Before you are the one who looks stupid on the matter, bear in mind that for the best part of thirty years homos have openly lived in partnerships. The only thing different between living in sin and marriage is the certificate itself. My life has not been affected one iota by gay people being in partnerships. If yours have, I'd love to know how...

 

[ScreamingEagle]

No. It would have none. If you care to point out what it would do to the social/political system be my guest. Before you are the one who looks stupid on the matter, bear in mind that for the best part of thirty years homos have openly lived in partnerships. The only thing different between living in sin and marriage is the certificate itself. My life has not been affected one iota by gay people being in partnerships. If yours have, I'd love to know how...

Pardon me, were you originally referring to private "marriages" between homosexuals instead of public, legal gay "marriages"?

 

[MissileMan]

It certainly is not contagious, but learned or persuaded into, yes.

Prove me wrong.

Do you think you could be persuaded to participate in homosexual sex? I know for sure that I couldn't and I'm pretty sure that you'll respond that you couldn't either. If you believe yourself incapable of it, why then do you assume that others can be?

 

[fuzzykitten99]

Uh huh. Yes, we're losing the battle because the majority of America is Christian and follows Christian ideals. Okay, have fun with that.

no, you are losing because you want special rights. Gays have ALL the same rights as straights. A straight person has no more a right to marry someone of the same sex than a gay person. You can marry anyone of your choice so long as that person is of the opposite sex. Doesn't matter your preference.

Not fair you say? Life isn't fair, is it? Don't like it? Too bad...suck it up and get on with your lifestyle of choice, just don't tell my kids it is normal when it is not. There are a male and female of nearly all animals on this earth because it takes two to reproduce and keep the species going. It is the law of nature. Most different breeds of animals and ALL races of humans can interbreed because the genetic makeup is the same-characteristics are the only thing that vary. Two males together or two females together cannot breed and keep the species going. How is that normal? There are some species of creatures that do not need a partner to keep their kind going-those are usually parasites and arthropods.

All the gay-marriage advocates want their 'private' behavior approved by the government, and in-turn the rest of the country. They want us to give 'em a lollipop and say, "Oh, it's ok, we don't want you to feel bad about yourself, so we will give you special rights and protections that people who are straight can't have. And if you are of a different race than white, you have double the protection from mean 'ol whitey!"

 

[mattskramer]

no, you are losing because you want special rights. Gays have ALL the same rights as straights. A straight person has no more a right to marry someone of the same sex than a gay person. You can marry anyone of your choice so long as that person is of the opposite sex. Doesn't matter your preference.

Not fair you say? Life isn't fair, is it? Don't like it? Too bad...suck it up and get on with your lifestyle of choice, just don't tell my kids it is normal when it is not. There are a male and female of nearly all animals on this earth because it takes two to reproduce and keep the species going. It is the law of nature. Most different breeds of animals and ALL races of humans can interbreed because the genetic makeup is the same-characteristics are the only thing that vary. Two males together or two females together cannot breed and keep the species going. How is that normal? There are some species of creatures that do not need a partner to keep their kind going-those are usually parasites and arthropods.

All the gay-marriage advocates want their 'private' behavior approved by the government, and in-turn the rest of the country. They want us to give 'em a lollipop and say, "Oh, it's ok, we don't want you to feel bad about yourself, so we will give you special rights and protections that people who are straight can't have. And if you are of a different race than white, you have double the protection from mean 'ol whitey!"

Some people will never learn. Are you suggesting that the human race will die out if we allow gay marriage? Hey! We are not talking about outlawing sex. People will continue to have children one way or another. Then there is that tiresome “natural law” fallacy. Just because something is not natural does not make it wrong. Finally, laws and rights change all of the time. We increase or reduce the minimum age limits for people. We prohibit and allow different things for different people. It used to be understood that Whites were not to get married to Blacks. Women were not allowed to vote. Slavery was condoned. Alcohol was outlawed for a brief time.

 

[Kagom]

no, you are losing because you want special rights. Gays have ALL the same rights as straights. A straight person has no more a right to marry someone of the same sex than a gay person. You can marry anyone of your choice so long as that person is of the opposite sex. Doesn't matter your preference.

That's not fair. Oh, look, you cover it below! But I have something else to say. It's crappy logic laced in here. Gay people aren't attracted to people of the opposite sex and therefore have no desire TO marry a person of the opposite sex, so in telling them if they want to marry, marry an opposite sex partner they have no real desire for is basically saying that you have no real argument and are just throwing stupid shit to hide behind.

Not fair you say? Life isn't fair, is it? Don't like it? Too bad...suck it up and get on with your lifestyle of choice, just don't tell my kids it is normal when it is not. There are a male and female of nearly all animals on this earth because it takes two to reproduce and keep the species going. It is the law of nature. Most different breeds of animals and ALL races of humans can interbreed because the genetic makeup is the same-characteristics are the only thing that vary. Two males together or two females together cannot breed and keep the species going. How is that normal? There are some species of creatures that do not need a partner to keep their kind going-those are usually parasites and arthropods.

It is normal. You choose to not believe it is normal. Your children can make up their own damn minds by looking into it. And? Has it ever occurred that maybe the law of nature has homosexuality as maybe a population control device? Or maybe, since people have never been able to eradicate homosexuality, nature has it around for some reason.

All the gay-marriage advocates want their 'private' behavior approved by the government, and in-turn the rest of the country. They want us to give 'em a lollipop and say, "Oh, it's ok, we don't want you to feel bad about yourself, so we will give you special rights and protections that people who are straight can't have. And if you are of a different race than white, you have double the protection from mean 'ol whitey!"

We don't care if the government approves of jack shit. We just want to be entitled to the same rights as any monogamous heterosexual couple entering matrimony through the state. And there's really no need for the "mean ol' whitey" bullshit you just regurgitated out of the depths of Bizarro Logic.

 

[Gunny]

That's not fair. Oh, look, you cover it below! But I have something else to say. It's crappy logic laced in here. Gay people aren't attracted to people of the opposite sex and therefore have no desire TO marry a person of the opposite sex, so in telling them if they want to marry, marry an opposite sex partner they have no real desire for is basically saying that you have no real argument and are just throwing stupid shit to hide behind.

Tough shit. Learn to be normal and you don't have a problem. The overwhelming majority of normal people shouldn't have to cater to your aberrance.


It is normal. You choose to not believe it is normal. Your children can make up their own damn minds by looking into it. And? Has it ever occurred that maybe the law of nature has homosexuality as maybe a population control device? Or maybe, since people have never been able to eradicate homosexuality, nature has it around for some reason.

Nothing normal about it. I ripped it shreds in the other thread ... you know ... the one you abandoned and left that moron mattskramer to spew his crap on your behalf. But you can go back and look anytime. Abnormalcy is proven at every level from basic biology to anatomy.


We don't care if the government approves of jack shit. We just want to be entitled to the same rights as any monogamous heterosexual couple entering matrimony through the state. And there's really no need for the "mean ol' whitey" bullshit you just regurgitated out of the depths of Bizarro Logic.

Would you like to think abou this statement again? Your first two sentences are contradictory.

What you want are special rights that cater to nothing but your aberrant lifestyle.

 

[CockySOB]

Alright, fine. If we assume for the moment that homosexuality is a 'learned trait' or caused by 'social pressures' or somesuch, then 'society' is responsible for creating homosexuals. If society is responsible for creating homosexuals, then society cannot condemn homosexuals else it condemns itself for creating homosexuality. If society is unwilling to condemn itself for causing the creation of homosexuals, then it cannot condemn homosexuals. If it cannot condemn homosexuals, then it cannot legally keep them from participating in societal functions since homosexuality or the practice thereof is not violating any common law. Marriage is a societal function, it helps society keep order by designating individuals who are pooling their resources to help themselves. Since marriage is a societal function, homosexuals should be able to participate in it fully, unless they are condemned by society or violating a law. If homosexuals are kept from participating in marriage, but are not violating any laws, then they are being discriminated against simply because they are homosexual.

You will note that most state Constitution's that ban homosexuality simply state that the state will not recognize a union between two men or two women, or that a valid union is only between a man and a woman. It is not against the law to practice homosexuality in any state since 2003. Society lets homosexuals participate except for keeping them from marrying / being granted the same privileges granted to heterosexuals after a marriage. Yet the practice of homosexuality is not a crime. Does anyone else see an error here?

Step back from the keyboard for a bit and take a deep breath.

Good. Now understand that my statement was merely one laying out the formal groundwork which should be the basis for the whole debate on homosexuality being genetic or learned. The first step is to look for a physical trait (i.e. genetic marker) which absolutely identifies sexual gender preference. Once genetics can either be confirmed or eliminated with regards to a person's sexual orientation, then we can truly proceed with determining the extent of environment plays in an individual's gender preference.

Now, when I refer to environment I am referring to two possible influences: learned behaviour, and biochemical reactions which affect brain chemistry. Both are likely contributors to sexual preference, and there are studies which support both arguments. The problem is that there is no evidence to support the theory that homosexuality is genetic, which would be the only truly "natural" condition for homosexuality.

When someone can provide proof that homosexuality has a genetic component, then I'll re-evaluate my beliefs on the topic. Until then, I'll continue to believe that homosexuality is derived from environment either as a learned behaviour or as a biochemical imbalance which is treatable.

Now, on to your assertion that if homosexuality is a learned trait, then society should not condemn homosexuality. Wrong. If society considers homosexual behaviour to be aberrant behaviour detrimental to society at-large, then it can pass laws to criminalize such behaviour. In fact, such laws used to exist in the USA until recently when the sodomy laws were repealed/reversed as you yourself noted. So homosexual activity is not criminalized putting individual sexual gender preferences outside of criminal law, right? Ergo, homosexuals ARE treated equally under the criminal codes as heterosexuals. On to civil codes - the marriage licensing is part of a civil contract laid out under the individual states jurisdiction. The exact same rights can be assigned under civil contracts as are codified in most marriage licenses, so again, there is no inequality under the law. Now, if you can prove that homosexuality is genetic, then you have grounds for complaint.

 

[Reneer]

Step back from the keyboard for a bit and take a deep breath.

Good. Now understand that my statement was merely one laying out the formal groundwork which should be the basis for the whole debate on homosexuality being genetic or learned. The first step is to look for a physical trait (i.e. genetic marker) which absolutely identifies sexual gender preference. Once genetics can either be confirmed or eliminated with regards to a person's sexual orientation, then we can truly proceed with determining the extent of environment plays in an individual's gender preference.

Now, when I refer to environment I am referring to two possible influences: learned behaviour, and biochemical reactions which affect brain chemistry. Both are likely contributors to sexual preference, and there are studies which support both arguments. The problem is that there is no evidence to support the theory that homosexuality is genetic, which would be the only truly "natural" condition for homosexuality.

When someone can provide proof that homosexuality has a genetic component, then I'll re-evaluate my beliefs on the topic. Until then, I'll continue to believe that homosexuality is derived from environment either as a learned behaviour or as a biochemical imbalance which is treatable.

First of all, sorry for snapping at you - this debate's been going on for a while and obviously at that point my brain was a little fried. I apologize. However, if the biochemical imbalance is produced while the fetus is in the mother's womb, and changes the way the brain functions (there is evidence to support this) - you certainly can't blame the child for it. And of course if it is determined that homosexuality is treatable - and by treatment I mean chemical and psychological, not one or the other - there of course is the fact that a patient can refuse treatment.

Now, on to your assertion that if homosexuality is a learned trait, then society should not condemn homosexuality. Wrong. If society considers homosexual behaviour to be aberrant behaviour detrimental to society at-large, then it can pass laws to criminalize such behaviour. In fact, such laws used to exist in the USA until recently when the sodomy laws were repealed/reversed as you yourself noted. So homosexual activity is not criminalized putting individual sexual gender preferences outside of criminal law, right? Ergo, homosexuals ARE treated equally under the criminal codes as heterosexuals. On to civil codes - the marriage licensing is part of a civil contract laid out under the individual states jurisdiction. The exact same rights can be assigned under civil contracts as are codified in most marriage licenses, so again, there is no inequality under the law. Now, if you can prove that homosexuality is genetic, then you have grounds for complaint.

I agree with you on most of this - except I've never heard of a 'civil contract' - mind enlightening me, please? If a state does not have this 'civil contract' and no other method exists to grant the privileges to same-sex couples, then there is inequality under the law (though I know I'm stating the obvious, I'd rather state it and waste my time than not state it at all.)

And in regards to the criminal codes, I wasn't saying that society can't condemn homosexuality, but it doesn't anymore. I was merely implying that if society does not condemn homosexuality and there are no criminal laws forbidding the practice of it, then there should be no reason why homosexuals cannot enter into a contract that gives them the same privileges that heterosexuals receive. Since I've never heard of a 'civil contract' as you describe it I couldn't have known that something like it existed... I would hope its existence renders most of my argument moot.

 

[CockySOB]

First of all, sorry for snapping at you - this debate's been going on for a while and obviously at that point my brain was a little fried. I apologize.

No problem. A lot of people go straight to the emotional arguments and neglect or reject a straightforward logical view out of hand - from both sides of the debate. Makes the whole thing very heated and emotional - which precludes logic for the most part.

I agree with you on most of this - except I've never heard of a 'civil contract' - mind enlightening me, please? If a state does not have this 'civil contract' and no other method exists to grant the privileges to same-sex couples, then there is inequality under the law (though I know I'm stating the obvious, I'd rather state it and waste my time than not state it at all.)

Think in terms of a standard business partnership contract or the legal documents which comprise incorporation. The parties involved enumerate their responsibilities under the contract and sign the contract to signify their agreement in a binding fashion. A rose by any other name and all....

And in regards to the criminal codes, I wasn't saying that society can't condemn homosexuality, but it doesn't anymore. I was merely implying that if society does not condemn homosexuality and there are no criminal laws forbidding the practice of it, then there should be no reason why homosexuals cannot enter into a contract that gives them the same privileges that heterosexuals receive. Since I've never heard of a 'civil contract' as you describe it I couldn't have known that something like it existed... I would hope its existence renders most of my argument moot.

Actually homosexuals CAN enter into a contract with every right that heterosexual couples receive. The thing is that the substance is not what the activists for the homosexual lobby are pushing for, they want the word 'marriage' to be forcibly changed from what society knows and accepts the term to signify, and something which society at large does NOT accept to fit the definition. I had another post recently wherein I discussed the failures, both tactical and strategical, of the homosexual lobby acting within the Democratic Party. Change public opinion FIRST before trying to get the term 'marriage' redefined. At the very least get close to half the voters to agree before trying to effect such a change. And for Pete's sake, forget trying to use the courts for FORCE such a change on the majority unless the genetics back the argument and you can use Equal Protection.

 

[Reneer]

Think in terms of a standard business partnership contract or the legal documents which comprise incorporation. The parties involved enumerate their responsibilities under the contract and sign the contract to signify their agreement in a binding fashion. A rose by any other name and all....

Actually homosexuals CAN enter into a contract with every right that heterosexual couples receive. The thing is that the substance is not what the activists for the homosexual lobby are pushing for, they want the word 'marriage' to be forcibly changed from what society knows and accepts the term to signify, and something which society at large does NOT accept to fit the definition. I had another post recently wherein I discussed the failures, both tactical and strategical, of the homosexual lobby acting within the Democratic Party. Change public opinion FIRST before trying to get the term 'marriage' redefined. At the very least get close to half the voters to agree before trying to effect such a change. And for Pete's sake, forget trying to use the courts for FORCE such a change on the majority unless the genetics back the argument and you can use Equal Protection.

This is cool and all, but what about entities outside of the incorporation, like hospitals, cemeteries, the state, etc. Unless you can get hospital visitation rights, etc, then this civil contract isn't 100% on the same footing as state-sanctioned marriage.

Separate but equal seems like a fine compromise to me, but I'm not quite sure I see the 'equal' part just yet between civil contracts and state-sanctioned marriage.

 

[Dr Grump]

Pardon me, were you originally referring to private "marriages" between homosexuals instead of public, legal gay "marriages"?

Either, or. Neither would affect me.

 

[musicman]

...if the biochemical imbalance is produced while the fetus is in the mother's womb, and changes the way the brain functions (there is evidence to support this) - you certainly can't blame the child for it.

I'm glad I didn't pay for the 2 1/2 year old study you cite, because it was a colossal waste of time and resources. It can't even rise to the level of superfluous duplication of effort, since a study on the hypothalamus glands of HUMAN BEINGS - purporting to provide some genetic link to homosexuality - was blown out of the water some years ago. We've got to get these people out of their ivory towers and have them read a newspaper once in a while.

The problem with the human study was that the brains of autopsied male homosexuals were studied. In other words - adults. You see the problem with claiming that this signifies a genetic link to ANYTHING, don't you? I imagine the same holds true with sheep.

 

[musicman]

Dr. Simon LeVay - he's all over the Internet. Here's a rather frank, in-depth appraisal:

http://elvis.rowan.edu/~kilroy/CHRISTIA/library/gays4.html

 

[Reneer]

I'm glad I didn't pay for the 2 1/2 year old study you cite, because it was a colossal waste of time and resources. It can't even rise to the level of superfluous duplication of effort, since a study on the hypothalamus glands of HUMAN BEINGS - purporting to provide some genetic link to homosexuality - was blown out of the water some years ago. We've got to get these people out of their ivory towers and have them read a newspaper once in a while.

The problem with the human study was that the brains of autopsied male homosexuals were studied. In other words - adults. You see the problem with claiming that this signifies a genetic link to ANYTHING, don't you? I imagine the same holds true with sheep.

You're right that it has nothing to do with genetics. I said 'biochemical imbalance' which means hormones produced within the mother's womb while the fetus is in gestation. It has nothing to do with the genes of the child. I was merely citing the study because it said that there was a difference between homosexuals and heterosexual rams. I never said that it was because of genetics; you inferred that, for whatever reason.

 

[musicman]

You're right that it has nothing to do with genetics. I said 'biochemical imbalance' which means hormones produced within the mother's womb while the fetus is in gestation. It has nothing to do with the genes of the child. I was merely citing the study because it said that there was a difference between homosexuals and heterosexual rams. I never said that it was because of genetics; you inferred that, for whatever reason.

At issue is whether sexual preference can be proven to have been determined in the womb, whether genetically or biochemically. If my terminology was too narrow, fine - it doesn't change the fact that this hypothesis has been blasted out of the water - in a study on HUMANS.

From the link:

We also don't know what other factors may have lead to the differ- ences in the sizes of the INAH. For example you could postulate accor- ding to Dr. Kenneth Clivington who works with Dr. LeVay at the Salk Institute that homosexual behavior itself actually affects the size of the INAH, not visa versa. We know that certain activities such as reading braille, or working on problems through a maze, will actually affect in some way, brain size. Could homosexual behavior somehow impact a part of the brain? That's entirely possible. There's no way to prove cause and effect which came first, the chicken or the egg.

 

[OCA]

And yet you offer no rebuttal to my breakdown of Mr. Sowell's article and why it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. You boast of homosexuals losing 'special rights' but homosexuals do not want 'special rights.' You call it a perversion of choice, yet the medical community does not consider it so. You say that the issue is being lost, but I say there are still bastions of tolerance even in those states with Constitutional Amendments.

Slick, i've been arguing this subject many moons before you came around and the rebuttal yo your pathetic "feel good" rebuttal is all over the board past and present, its not up to me to repeat myself for your convenience.

Everything I stated is absolutely true, let me add that choice was taken off the board under extreme political and financial pressure from the queer choice groups decades back, not because of any proof of genetics.

 

[Reneer]

At issue is whether sexual preference can be proven to have been determined in the womb, whether genetically or biochemically. If my terminology was too narrow, fine - it doesn't change the fact that this hypothesis has been blasted out of the water - in a study on HUMANS.

From the link:

We also don't know what other factors may have lead to the differ- ences in the sizes of the INAH. For example you could postulate accor- ding to Dr. Kenneth Clivington who works with Dr. LeVay at the Salk Institute that homosexual behavior itself actually affects the size of the INAH, not visa versa. We know that certain activities such as reading braille, or working on problems through a maze, will actually affect in some way, brain size. Could homosexual behavior somehow impact a part of the brain? That's entirely possible. There's no way to prove cause and effect which came first, the chicken or the egg.

Even if homosexuality is not produced through genetics or INAH differences, you haven't yet ruled out abnormal biochemical levels in the womb which could affect the brain in a myriad level of ways.

Slick, i've been arguing this subject many moons before you came around and the rebuttal yo your pathetic "feel good" rebuttal is all over the board past and present, its not up to me to repeat myself for your convenience.

How exactly is my rebuttal 'feel good'? If by 'feel good' you mean trying to counter the arguments made by Mr. Sowell, then yes, it is a 'feel good' rebuttal.

Everything I stated is absolutely true, let me add that choice was taken off the board under extreme political and financial pressure from the queer choice groups decades back, not because of any proof of genetics.

Absolutely true is a rather grandiose claim. Just so I understand, you say that everything that you have stated, and the sources you have used in those statements, are absolutely, 100% true?

 

[OCA]

Absolutely true is a rather grandiose claim. Just so I understand, you say that everything that you have stated, and the sources you have used in those statements, are absolutely, 100% true?

Do you realize that billions of dollars have been poured into and many decades into research to find the "mythical" gay gene? No gene found, it doesn't exist. You realize how silly you sound still defending the choice?

 

[Reneer]

Do you realize that billions of dollars have been poured into and many decades into research to find the "mythical" gay gene? No gene found, it doesn't exist. You realize how silly you sound still defending the choice?

I don't mind being thought of as 'silly' - and absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence. There is something that causes homosexuality. If it was purely social, then how could different societies, which stress majorly different things for their people, all 'create' homosexuals in some fashion? If it is a chmical imbalance, what causes it? If it is genetic, what genes play a role? Homosexuality doesn't simply appear in a person, it needs to have a cause - I know it's cliche, but people don't just wake up one morning and decide that they want to be homosexual.