Bachmann signs The Family Lead pledge

[NYcarbineer]

let me ask you same, who represents the Democratic party, who is their 'base'...?

There is no real big group on the Left that represents the Democratic party. It's not like the right with the Tea Party. Therefore I would say going by ideology, it's Liberals/Progressives. However, they only make up a slim majority of the party. As it's shown in Congress with the Blue Dogs, etc, the Democratic party compasses a vast length on the political spectrum that means they don't vote lock step on the issues.

What you have going on right now is the GOP is pandering to their base, that being people who are either part of Tea Party or support the Tea Party in their goals. That's why candidates like Michele Bachmann are doing so well and why candidates like Mitt Romney are beginning to falter.

However, the Democrats rarely pander to their 'base'.

Where the **** do you people get this bullshit from?

Take a look at the states the Blue dogs represent sometime, then compare them to Republicans from liberal states. You will see that the truth is that Republicans are just as broad spectrum as Democrats. There are far right, socially conservative Democrats, and far left, socially liberal Republicans.

Ok, then name the far left socially liberal Republicans in Congress.

 

[Seawytch]

Might as well just rename it "the homophobia pledge".

Scientists almost universally agree that sexual orientation IS NOT a choice, no matter how many times the homophobes try to claim it is. (even going so far as to sign a pledge asserting that falsehood)

Scientists almost universally agree? Since when? Do you have any evidence to back that up, or am I supposed to take the almost universally as proof that every time I find a study that says other wise it is simply wrong?

So provide it. If you have actual peer reviewed studies from scientists that say being gay IS a choice, by all means provide just ONE. It's impossible because you do not choose who you are attracted to. The concept is ridiculous. The only choice is in acting upon your natural inclinations.

Here's what I've got...

Rather, all of the peer-reviewed literature is converging on the opinion that sexual orientation has a strongly genetic causation. This is not meant to imply that sexual orientation is completely determined by genes. It seems there is a complex interaction between biology and the environment to produce sexual orientation. In insects, same-gender sexual mating is induced from altering genes alone, thus indicating a 100% biological causatoin for sexual orientation in simple species. For lower mammals, like rats, same-sex mating behaviors will occur simply by putting a female "smell" on a male rat. "Lesbian" and "gay" rats, guinea pigs, sheep, zebra finches (just after hatching) and monkeys can be produced simply by altering prenatal androgen levels (natural hormones that bathe the fetus in utero) in the mother, in a process called behavioral defeminization and behavioral demasculinization. It is currently believed that

In vertebrate model systems, a single [prenatal] factor-the steroid hormone testosterone-accounts for most, and perhaps all, of the known sex differences in neural structure and behavior. . . . Events triggered by testosterone masculinize the developing and adult nervous system, [to] promote male behaviors and suppress female behaviors.
In the animal kingdom, same-sex mating, including life-time pairing, is not uncommon, presumably caused by mechanisms such as these.​

Hundreds of zoological studies have found evidence of such pairings in the wild, including, for example, the widely publicized "gay" penguins in both the New York and Berlin zoos.

In humans, socialization makes the development of sexual orientation much more complex. However, the prenatal biological process is identical. While, in most instances, sexual development of the body and the brain occurs without discrepancy, in some instances prenatal androgen levels change in the middle of this process, causing a dichotomy in the affected individual. For example, in congenital adrenal hyperplasia, the early process of physical sexualization takes place as expected in the female. However, later in development, the adrenal glands begin producing excess testosterone, causing the brain to become masculinized. Almost half of this population become homosexual or bisexual.

It is believed that similar processes are the cause of homosexuality in the general population. While the pro-amendment testimony is correct, that "there are no replicated studies proving that homosexuality is caused by biological factors," there is also no disagreement at this point in the medical, psychological and biological communities that biology is a crucial dimension to the process of human homosexuality, just as it is the sole cause of homosexuality in all lower species. There are no peer-reviewed studies that any longer explore purely, or even mostly, psychological causes for homosexuality in humans. The convergence of many decades of research, as well as theory, all point to, by far, biology as a primary factor in human sexual orientation. While we know that biological factors do not act as the sole cause of homosexuality, it is accepted as the primary cause. While many studies support this idea, there are no current studies that contradict this belief.

Biology of Sexual Orientation (A detailed article with sources...)

The truth is that no one knows enough about how sexual choice to have an informed opinion.

We do. Gays and lesbians know enough...and what do they tell you? They tell you that they did not choose to be attracted to members of the same sex.

And why does it matter? What does choice have to do with legal, civil marriage? Religion is a choice and yet a law that prevented only Protestants from civil marriage would be unconstitutional....

 

[Valerie]

Might as well just rename it "the homophobia pledge".

Scientists almost universally agree that sexual orientation IS NOT a choice, no matter how many times the homophobes try to claim it is. (even going so far as to sign a pledge asserting that falsehood)

So provide it. If you have actual peer reviewed studies from scientists that say being gay IS a choice, by all means provide just ONE. It's impossible because you do not choose who you are attracted to. The concept is ridiculous. The only choice is in acting upon your natural inclinations.

Here's what I've got...

Rather, all of the peer-reviewed literature is converging on the opinion that sexual orientation has a strongly genetic causation. This is not meant to imply that sexual orientation is completely determined by genes. It seems there is a complex interaction between biology and the environment to produce sexual orientation. In insects, same-gender sexual mating is induced from altering genes alone, thus indicating a 100% biological causatoin for sexual orientation in simple species. For lower mammals, like rats, same-sex mating behaviors will occur simply by putting a female "smell" on a male rat. "Lesbian" and "gay" rats, guinea pigs, sheep, zebra finches (just after hatching) and monkeys can be produced simply by altering prenatal androgen levels (natural hormones that bathe the fetus in utero) in the mother, in a process called behavioral defeminization and behavioral demasculinization. It is currently believed that

In vertebrate model systems, a single [prenatal] factor-the steroid hormone testosterone-accounts for most, and perhaps all, of the known sex differences in neural structure and behavior. . . . Events triggered by testosterone masculinize the developing and adult nervous system, [to] promote male behaviors and suppress female behaviors.
In the animal kingdom, same-sex mating, including life-time pairing, is not uncommon, presumably caused by mechanisms such as these.​

Hundreds of zoological studies have found evidence of such pairings in the wild, including, for example, the widely publicized "gay" penguins in both the New York and Berlin zoos.

In humans, socialization makes the development of sexual orientation much more complex. However, the prenatal biological process is identical. While, in most instances, sexual development of the body and the brain occurs without discrepancy, in some instances prenatal androgen levels change in the middle of this process, causing a dichotomy in the affected individual. For example, in congenital adrenal hyperplasia, the early process of physical sexualization takes place as expected in the female. However, later in development, the adrenal glands begin producing excess testosterone, causing the brain to become masculinized. Almost half of this population become homosexual or bisexual.

It is believed that similar processes are the cause of homosexuality in the general population. While the pro-amendment testimony is correct, that "there are no replicated studies proving that homosexuality is caused by biological factors," there is also no disagreement at this point in the medical, psychological and biological communities that biology is a crucial dimension to the process of human homosexuality, just as it is the sole cause of homosexuality in all lower species. There are no peer-reviewed studies that any longer explore purely, or even mostly, psychological causes for homosexuality in humans. The convergence of many decades of research, as well as theory, all point to, by far, biology as a primary factor in human sexual orientation. While we know that biological factors do not act as the sole cause of homosexuality, it is accepted as the primary cause. While many studies support this idea, there are no current studies that contradict this belief.

Biology of Sexual Orientation (A detailed article with sources...)

The truth is that no one knows enough about how sexual choice to have an informed opinion.

We do. Gays and lesbians know enough...and what do they tell you? They tell you that they did not choose to be attracted to members of the same sex.

And why does it matter? What does choice have to do with legal, civil marriage? Religion is a choice and yet a law that prevented only Protestants from civil marriage would be unconstitutional....

Right, whether or not there is a genetic component to one's sexual orientation is irrelevant to the fact that in this country we recognize that ALL are created equal and consenting adults are FREE to "choose" a partner to love. Those who want to harp on choice over genetics in the marriage debate are nothing but ignorant haters.

 

[Seawytch]

The research that this "pledge" quotes has a disclaimer by the authors of it. Of course the authors of the "pledge" don't include it, but I will.

Gay life expectancy revisited

in which the researchers say:

In contrast, if we were to repeat this analysis today the life expectancy of gay and bisexual men would be greatly improved. Deaths from HIV infection have declined dramatically in this population since 1996. As we have previously reported there has been a threefold decrease in mortality in Vancouver as well as in other parts of British Columbia.​

How does being a lesbian adversely effect health?

Greatly improved is nice, but greatly improved is not the same as eliminated.

As for lesbians, I don't know, but the government seems to believe that there are some problems.

Gay, Lesbian and Transgender Health: MedlinePlus

Oh I see...in order for gays to be able to legally married, HIV and AIDS must be completely eliminated. WTF? This "pledge" is putting out intentionally misleading information and you just shrug it off with...it ain't gone completely?

What does ANY of this have to do with this pledge that the Beard er, potential candidate, Michelle Bachmann signed? Obesity is the number one health risk facing this country...and yet I don't see the Bachmanns trying to keep the fatties from getting married. Why not?

The NIH provides the health risks for everything and everybody. How many health risk categories would you fall into according to the NIH?

Men?

Seniors?

Other Population Groups?

Why should the health concerns of any one group exclude them from the legal marriage equality?

 

[Seawytch]

hello- DOMA and DADT and The Dream act......are wedge social issues too, why it is ok to call for a truce on social issues yet the dems. get to play their games?

How is it a wedge issue when there is majority support for repealing DOMA, getting rid of DADT and passing the DREAM Act?

Most people believe abortion should be restricted, how is that a wedge issue?

Abortion is restricted so you'll have to ask the right wing...who manufacture it as a wedge issue to keep their base riled up (and then never actually do anything since only 22% of the population believes that abortion should be illegal in all situations and circumstances)

 

[JakeStarkey]

How is it a wedge issue when there is majority support for repealing DOMA, getting rid of DADT and passing the DREAM Act?

Most people believe abortion should be restricted, how is that a wedge issue?

Abortion is restricted so you'll have to ask the right wing...who manufacture it as a wedge issue to keep their base riled up (and then never actually do anything since only 22% of the population believes that abortion should be illegal in all situations and circumstances)

QWB ignores the fact that about 60% of Americans prefer the right to choose within a federally regulated system of abortion. QWB is in the small minority that oppose abortion. Who cares? His type falsely believe they incorporate mainstream America instead of recognizing they are on the far, far right in a small minority.

 

[Valerie]

The research that this "pledge" quotes has a disclaimer by the authors of it. Of course the authors of the "pledge" don't include it, but I will.

Gay life expectancy revisited

in which the researchers say:

In contrast, if we were to repeat this analysis today the life expectancy of gay and bisexual men would be greatly improved. Deaths from HIV infection have declined dramatically in this population since 1996. As we have previously reported there has been a threefold decrease in mortality in Vancouver as well as in other parts of British Columbia.​

How does being a lesbian adversely effect health?

Greatly improved is nice, but greatly improved is not the same as eliminated.

As for lesbians, I don't know, but the government seems to believe that there are some problems.

Gay, Lesbian and Transgender Health: MedlinePlus

Oh I see...in order for gays to be able to legally married, HIV and AIDS must be completely eliminated. WTF? This "pledge" is putting out intentionally misleading information and you just shrug it off with...it ain't gone completely?

What does ANY of this have to do with this pledge that the Beard er, potential candidate, Michelle Bachmann signed? Obesity is the number one health risk facing this country...and yet I don't see the Bachmanns trying to keep the fatties from getting married. Why not?

The NIH provides the health risks for everything and everybody. How many health risk categories would you fall into according to the NIH?

Men?

Seniors?

Other Population Groups?

Why should the health concerns of any one group exclude them from the legal marriage equality?

Put down those Twinkies and save the children!

 

[Seawytch]

In 2008, his position on gay marriage was the same as Bush's.

That is completely false. President Obama does not, nor has he ever, supported an amendment to the Constitution that would limit legal marriage to only a man and a woman.

Dick Cheney has done more to support same sex marriage than Obama.

Talked, yes...done, no...

After careful consideration, including review of a recommendation from me, the President of the United States has made the determination that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”), 1 U.S.C. § 7, as applied to same-sex couples who are legally married under state law, violates the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 530D

Obama Administration Says DOMA Unconstitutional, Won't Defend it in Court

 

[Valerie]

Paula Deen is bad bad bad for the American family!

Paula's Home Cooking : Paula Deen : Food Network

 

[Trajan]

let me ask you same, who represents the Democratic party, who is their 'base'...?

There is no real big group on the Left that represents the Democratic party. It's not like the right with the Tea Party. Therefore I would say going by ideology, it's Liberals/Progressives. However, they only make up a slim majority of the party. As it's shown in Congress with the Blue Dogs, etc, the Democratic party compasses a vast length on the political spectrum that means they don't vote lock step on the issues.

What you have going on right now is the GOP is pandering to their base, that being people who are either part of Tea Party or support the Tea Party in their goals. That's why candidates like Michele Bachmann are doing so well and why candidates like Mitt Romney are beginning to falter.

However, the Democrats rarely pander to their 'base'.

I cannot take anyone seriously who makes such a frivolous and ridiculous statement on the back of a what appears to be for them a thought out message, but I ill try anyway.

It appears to me that you either follow politics from a heavily skewed viewpoint or don't really at all.


your 'base' of blue dogs was slaughtered in nov. they were ( and I made this point to you before in another thread, the one here in you accused me of insulting you) that Rahm Emmanuel performed brilliantly in helping to follow thru on his and nancys idea to gather and run as many blue dogs as possible in 06 , they won and took the house. Then they were then thrown overboard in the pursuit of the prog/lib old bulls mantra of big gov. who have uber safe seats and run the show via committee control, ala nancy ( speaker) waxman, rangel, conyers etc etc....

the tea party is a fiscally con. grp. that in effect carries the platform that almost all cons ( and a lot of the growing independents) have always found attractive, smaller gov and a fiscally sound gov., how many of the loose conglomeration of tea party grp.s are following bachmann is a Q I don't know the answer too, as she trys to anyone hom will sppt her she will pander to alike minded to her and others, they all do it.


I will say this one more time, EVERY parties candidates all run to the far reaches of the number line to gather in as many votes as possible to get ahead in the primaries, then run to center if nominated to appeal to a wider swath of the ever growing Independents....


It appears to me you seem to think that the tea partys will sppt. Bachmann no matter what because shes a social conservative as well as a fiscal one. Based on what ?

This whole bruhahaha? Because she gaining ground after presenting well in a debate and was born in Iowa and a few polls that says shes in second place? It’s the run up to the primaries…the only folks ho pay attention to this now are the highly motivated, this year might be different because of the economy, but to start reading tea leaves no ( no pun intended) is very premature. The tea party appeals to more folks than the lib/prog. sect because they are for smaller gov. and a fiscally sound one, the moment they start going sideways into the social agenda they will begin to lose influence, but that will inho, be later in the primaries….

Just because Bachmann collects what you say are tea partys votes, true OR not, doesn’t mean they are the rep. Base.

And just because there are fiscal cons hom like me sppt the tea parties small G and fiscal platforms doesn’t mean I will sppt. them if they do go sideways.

AND, I think I am not alone, at all in that thought.

( Oh and just because the tea prty helped put people in congress doesn’t mean their members ill vote exactly the ay they want them too, see: dem. Blue dogs)

The media has been screaming for red meat and want rep. candidates to get going because the want to sell news and savage them as they appear. Why? Because Obama started in April, so they ant a foil.

There is a long, long road to hoe.

Conversely the weekly standard and other dependable republican/con. publications ran articles in Jan -march 2004 ( note the date -2004) wondering why bush wasn’t getting his message out ……interesting eh?


And as far as dem. ‘Bases’, how about, oh, unions? Minorities?


Frankly each party has a number of ‘bases’ all requiring the middle or independent to come aboard to push them over the top.


and this-

However, the Democrats rarely pander to their 'base'.

there is no river long enough or deep enough to match that denial.

 

[Gadawg73]

That is completely false. President Obama does not, nor has he ever, supported an amendment to the Constitution that would limit legal marriage to only a man and a woman.

Dick Cheney has done more to support same sex marriage than Obama.

Talked, yes...done, no...

After careful consideration, including review of a recommendation from me, the President of the United States has made the determination that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”), 1 U.S.C. § 7, as applied to same-sex couples who are legally married under state law, violates the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 530D

Obama Administration Says DOMA Unconstitutional, Won't Defend it in Court

Cheney was only VP and not in Congress with not much power.
Cheney is a parent of a gay child and Obama is not. No disrespect to the President but seeing Dick Cheney on TV speaking about his child and how everyone should leave gay folks alone and let them live their lives as they are with the same rights carries a lot more credibility than anything Obama can do. Cheney is a good model for real conservatives like myself that want equal rights for everyone and THE DAMN GOVERNMENT out of the decision of gays that love each other getting married.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Kudos to Cheney, as the President has to move within the structure and confines of his office. Refusing to litigate DOMA is a great move. True conservatives want the government out of the bedroom.

 

[Seawytch]

Dick Cheney has done more to support same sex marriage than Obama.

Talked, yes...done, no...

After careful consideration, including review of a recommendation from me, the President of the United States has made the determination that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”), 1 U.S.C. § 7, as applied to same-sex couples who are legally married under state law, violates the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 530D

Obama Administration Says DOMA Unconstitutional, Won't Defend it in Court

Cheney was only VP and not in Congress with not much power.
Cheney is a parent of a gay child and Obama is not. No disrespect to the President but seeing Dick Cheney on TV speaking about his child and how everyone should leave gay folks alone and let them live their lives as they are with the same rights carries a lot more credibility than anything Obama can do. Cheney is a good model for real conservatives like myself that want equal rights for everyone and THE DAMN GOVERNMENT out of the decision of gays that love each other getting married.

Cheney didn't have much power? You're kidding right?

Cheney’s Power No Longer Goes Unquestioned

Pushing the Envelope on Presidential Power

Cheney Power Grab: Says White House Rules Don't Apply to Him

I do applaud Mr. Cheney for supporting his daughter and marriage equality. Of course, that is what it takes for most people...actually knowing and loving someone who is gay or lesbian.

The guy that organized the anti-gay NOM tour is now a supporter of marriage equality because he went out and actually met gays and lesbians.

I Now Support Full Marriage Equality

 

[Gadawg73]

Talked, yes...done, no...

After careful consideration, including review of a recommendation from me, the President of the United States has made the determination that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”), 1 U.S.C. § 7, as applied to same-sex couples who are legally married under state law, violates the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 530D

Obama Administration Says DOMA Unconstitutional, Won't Defend it in Court

Cheney was only VP and not in Congress with not much power.
Cheney is a parent of a gay child and Obama is not. No disrespect to the President but seeing Dick Cheney on TV speaking about his child and how everyone should leave gay folks alone and let them live their lives as they are with the same rights carries a lot more credibility than anything Obama can do. Cheney is a good model for real conservatives like myself that want equal rights for everyone and THE DAMN GOVERNMENT out of the decision of gays that love each other getting married.

Cheney didn't have much power? You're kidding right?

Cheney’s Power No Longer Goes Unquestioned

Pushing the Envelope on Presidential Power

Cheney Power Grab: Says White House Rules Don't Apply to Him

I do applaud Mr. Cheney for supporting his daughter and marriage equality. Of course, that is what it takes for most people...actually knowing and loving someone who is gay or lesbian.

The guy that organized the anti-gay NOM tour is now a supporter of marriage equality because he went out and actually met gays and lesbians.

I Now Support Full Marriage Equality

None of that power has anything to do with gay marriage.
If you look now, especially in the California case, it is conservatives like myself that are leading the charge for marriage equality.
Don't get side tracked with the non issues. NO ONE is going to agree 100% with you or I on everything.
Stay away from the partisan politics. Pick your battles and agree to disagree agreeably with others. That is where gains are made.

 

[Seawytch]

Cheney was only VP and not in Congress with not much power.
Cheney is a parent of a gay child and Obama is not. No disrespect to the President but seeing Dick Cheney on TV speaking about his child and how everyone should leave gay folks alone and let them live their lives as they are with the same rights carries a lot more credibility than anything Obama can do. Cheney is a good model for real conservatives like myself that want equal rights for everyone and THE DAMN GOVERNMENT out of the decision of gays that love each other getting married.

Cheney didn't have much power? You're kidding right?

Cheney’s Power No Longer Goes Unquestioned

Pushing the Envelope on Presidential Power

Cheney Power Grab: Says White House Rules Don't Apply to Him

I do applaud Mr. Cheney for supporting his daughter and marriage equality. Of course, that is what it takes for most people...actually knowing and loving someone who is gay or lesbian.

The guy that organized the anti-gay NOM tour is now a supporter of marriage equality because he went out and actually met gays and lesbians.

I Now Support Full Marriage Equality

None of that power has anything to do with gay marriage.
If you look now, especially in the California case, it is conservatives like myself that are leading the charge for marriage equality.
Don't get side tracked with the non issues. NO ONE is going to agree 100% with you or I on everything.
Stay away from the partisan politics. Pick your battles and agree to disagree agreeably with others. That is where gains are made.

You can't say this isn't a partisan issue (I'll agree that it has nothing to do with Cheney's immense powers ) when Republicans try to write anti-gay bigotry into their party platforms and candidates for President sign anti-gay pledges like the one being discussed here.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

There is no real big group on the Left that represents the Democratic party. It's not like the right with the Tea Party. Therefore I would say going by ideology, it's Liberals/Progressives. However, they only make up a slim majority of the party. As it's shown in Congress with the Blue Dogs, etc, the Democratic party compasses a vast length on the political spectrum that means they don't vote lock step on the issues.

What you have going on right now is the GOP is pandering to their base, that being people who are either part of Tea Party or support the Tea Party in their goals. That's why candidates like Michele Bachmann are doing so well and why candidates like Mitt Romney are beginning to falter.

However, the Democrats rarely pander to their 'base'.

Where the **** do you people get this bullshit from?

Take a look at the states the Blue dogs represent sometime, then compare them to Republicans from liberal states. You will see that the truth is that Republicans are just as broad spectrum as Democrats. There are far right, socially conservative Democrats, and far left, socially liberal Republicans.

Ok, then name the far left socially liberal Republicans in Congress.

Are you really going to pretend you are that stupid?

Olympia Snowe on the Issues

Maybe you aren't pretending.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So provide it. If you have actual peer reviewed studies from scientists that say being gay IS a choice, by all means provide just ONE. It's impossible because you do not choose who you are attracted to. The concept is ridiculous. The only choice is in acting upon your natural inclinations.

Never said I did, what I said was that every single study that exist ends up proving that it is not genetic or environmental. The ones that I have seen about hormonal causes also lack in defining hormones as the cause of sexual orientation.

Here's what I've got...

Rather, all of the peer-reviewed literature is converging on the opinion that sexual orientation has a strongly genetic causation. This is not meant to imply that sexual orientation is completely determined by genes. It seems there is a complex interaction between biology and the environment to produce sexual orientation. In insects, same-gender sexual mating is induced from altering genes alone, thus indicating a 100% biological causatoin for sexual orientation in simple species. For lower mammals, like rats, same-sex mating behaviors will occur simply by putting a female "smell" on a male rat. "Lesbian" and "gay" rats, guinea pigs, sheep, zebra finches (just after hatching) and monkeys can be produced simply by altering prenatal androgen levels (natural hormones that bathe the fetus in utero) in the mother, in a process called behavioral defeminization and behavioral demasculinization. It is currently believed that

In vertebrate model systems, a single [prenatal] factor-the steroid hormone testosterone-accounts for most, and perhaps all, of the known sex differences in neural structure and behavior. . . . Events triggered by testosterone masculinize the developing and adult nervous system, [to] promote male behaviors and suppress female behaviors.
In the animal kingdom, same-sex mating, including life-time pairing, is not uncommon, presumably caused by mechanisms such as these.​

Hundreds of zoological studies have found evidence of such pairings in the wild, including, for example, the widely publicized "gay" penguins in both the New York and Berlin zoos.

In humans, socialization makes the development of sexual orientation much more complex. However, the prenatal biological process is identical. While, in most instances, sexual development of the body and the brain occurs without discrepancy, in some instances prenatal androgen levels change in the middle of this process, causing a dichotomy in the affected individual. For example, in congenital adrenal hyperplasia, the early process of physical sexualization takes place as expected in the female. However, later in development, the adrenal glands begin producing excess testosterone, causing the brain to become masculinized. Almost half of this population become homosexual or bisexual.

It is believed that similar processes are the cause of homosexuality in the general population. While the pro-amendment testimony is correct, that "there are no replicated studies proving that homosexuality is caused by biological factors," there is also no disagreement at this point in the medical, psychological and biological communities that biology is a crucial dimension to the process of human homosexuality, just as it is the sole cause of homosexuality in all lower species. There are no peer-reviewed studies that any longer explore purely, or even mostly, psychological causes for homosexuality in humans. The convergence of many decades of research, as well as theory, all point to, by far, biology as a primary factor in human sexual orientation. While we know that biological factors do not act as the sole cause of homosexuality, it is accepted as the primary cause. While many studies support this idea, there are no current studies that contradict this belief.

Biology of Sexual Orientation (A detailed article with sources...)

Multiple twin studies have indicated that the correlation sexuality and genetics runs about 50%. These studies, despite the "convergence" of other studies, prove that genetics are not the determining factor in sexual choice. I think they also discount prenatal hormonal changes and environment, but I could be way off base there.

Biology and sexual orientation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

We do. Gays and lesbians know enough...and what do they tell you? They tell you that they did not choose to be attracted to members of the same sex.

And why does it matter? What does choice have to do with legal, civil marriage? Religion is a choice and yet a law that prevented only Protestants from civil marriage would be unconstitutional....

What makes you think gays know more about sexuality than straights? I keep talking about sexuality in general, and you keep trying to bring up a single segment of the population and holding them up as an example of how wrong I am. Either science applies to everyone, or it does not apply at all.

Sexual orientation is complex and no one understands enough about it to know what causes it. That includes the people that actually study it, and it even includes the arrogant among us who think they have a different perspective. I know gays who insist that it is a choice, and I know some who insist it is genetic. The vast majority of them admit they don't know enough to have the answers.

And, as I already pointed out, it does not matter if it is a choice or not. Given that fact, why are you trying to get me to ignore the fact that there are definitive studies that prove it is not genetic?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Modbert speaking:


The sane person's reaction. . . .

Option A:

Option B:

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The research that this "pledge" quotes has a disclaimer by the authors of it. Of course the authors of the "pledge" don't include it, but I will.

Gay life expectancy revisited

in which the researchers say:

In contrast, if we were to repeat this analysis today the life expectancy of gay and bisexual men would be greatly improved. Deaths from HIV infection have declined dramatically in this population since 1996. As we have previously reported there has been a threefold decrease in mortality in Vancouver as well as in other parts of British Columbia.​

How does being a lesbian adversely effect health?

Greatly improved is nice, but greatly improved is not the same as eliminated.

As for lesbians, I don't know, but the government seems to believe that there are some problems.

Gay, Lesbian and Transgender Health: MedlinePlus

Oh I see...in order for gays to be able to legally married, HIV and AIDS must be completely eliminated. WTF? This "pledge" is putting out intentionally misleading information and you just shrug it off with...it ain't gone completely?

What does ANY of this have to do with this pledge that the Beard er, potential candidate, Michelle Bachmann signed? Obesity is the number one health risk facing this country...and yet I don't see the Bachmanns trying to keep the fatties from getting married. Why not?

The NIH provides the health risks for everything and everybody. How many health risk categories would you fall into according to the NIH?

Men?

Seniors?

Other Population Groups?

Why should the health concerns of any one group exclude them from the legal marriage equality?

Where the **** did I say that?

You claimed that saying that gays and lesbians are more prone to health issues than straight people. FYI, single people are more prone to health issues than happily married couples. Does me pointing that out make me biased against single people?

If you want to make a ******* case for your side deal with the facts, even the bad ones. Admit that there are health issues, and don't try to call everyone that acknowledges them bigoted. You turn more people against your position by reacting with anger when someone asks about things like this than anyone who actually tries to make a case against same sex marriage possibly could.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

How is it a wedge issue when there is majority support for repealing DOMA, getting rid of DADT and passing the DREAM Act?

Most people believe abortion should be restricted, how is that a wedge issue?

Abortion is restricted so you'll have to ask the right wing...who manufacture it as a wedge issue to keep their base riled up (and then never actually do anything since only 22% of the population believes that abortion should be illegal in all situations and circumstances)

I get it now, wedge issues are anything that offends you.

And you want to act like the bigots are the ones on the other side.