[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
We should hacking at the root, not the branch, of the problem.[/quote]
Why present it as a black and white issue? I agree with the wisdom of hacking at the root, but why not hack at the branch as well?
Realistically, no matter what we do there are going to be children in orphanages. That is a fact and we both know it. Yes, we should do everything we can to keep children with their biological parents, but orphans are still going to exist and need to be cared for.
Those children are better off being raised in a loving and secure home environment than in a public institution, regardless of whether it is a same- or opposite-sex home.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
So please - show me where the legislature acted on this.
[/quote]
The gay marriage bill was passed by the legislature, and subsequently vetoed by Schwarzenegger. This was in 2005, three years prior to the Supreme Court decision.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Well, there is lots of “inequality” as it pertains to positive rights.[/quote]
And that justifies it? The existence of inequality doesn’t axiomatically make it morally acceptable, regardless of whether the inequality is in “positive” or “negative” rights.
So you consider it acceptable for a straight couple to have a child through a surrogate parent, even though that means the child will not be raised by its biological parents.
You justify this by saying the law must be “overinclusive”. I don’t get this. If you believe a child should be raised by its biological parents, why not simply outlaw surrogate parenthood? I don’t see how “overinclusiveness” has any bearing on this.
You also justify this by saying that marriage keeps the fertile partner from having children out of wedlock. But what does that have to do with the morality of surrogate parenthood? Children are still being raised by their non-biological parents, which you strongly oppose. You could allow marriage without allowing surrogate parenthood, so why don’t you?
What does that have to do with the logic or illogic of the statement below? Read carefully:
I’m not asking about the morality of mixed race marriages. I’m asking if you agree with the logic in the following statement.
It’s a simple yes or no question. If you don’t agree, please explain why:
Black men have the right to marry someone of the same race, just as white men do. Therefore black and white men have the same rights. Granting black men the right to marry white women would be a case of “special rights”.
How is the opposite true? I said that polygamy should be judged on its own merits. If it is not inherently harmful, it should be allowed.
[quote]forlife wrote:
rainjack wrote:
So please - show me where the legislature acted on this.
The gay marriage bill was passed by the legislature, and subsequently vetoed by Schwarzenegger. This was in 2005, three years prior to the Supreme Court decision.[/quote]
Thanks.
But it happened 5 years after the people spoke. So, that proves my statement that the legislature did not reperesent the will of the people. Arnold must have known this, or he would not have vetoed the bill.
The legislature’s action was meaningless anyhow, since it was vetoed. Then the activist court jumped in and gave the minority what they couldn’t get via open elections.
[quote]RebornTN wrote:
Score one point for me?[/quote]
I missed the point you apparently scored? Are you talking about the conclusion that children raised by gay parents are no more likely to be gay than children raised by straight parents? If so, let me know and I’ll provide corroborating information from the scientific community.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Science certainly cares about correlations that suggest a causation - in fact, we wouldn’t even have “science” if it didn’t.[/quote]
The question of causation can only be determined by controlling the variables in question, and any attempt to conclude causation based only on correlational data is statistically and scientifically unjustified.
This is a correct statement. Obviously the existence of a correlation doesn’t mean there isn’t a causal relationship between two variables. I never said or implied otherwise. There very well may be a causal relationship, in either direction. What I said was that you can’t assume a causal relationship based on correlational data alone.
More accurately, correlation can suggest the possibility of causation. Again, I never said otherwise.
Correlation suggests the possibility that a causes b.
Correlation suggests the possibility that b causes a.
Correlation suggests the possibility that a and b are caused by c.
All possibilities should be considered, and it is not justified to focus on only one possibility at the exclusion of the others.
As a starting point, you can look at the potential explanatory mechanisms for the above three possibilities. I have yet to hear a compelling explanation for why gay marraige would hurt straight marriage, so I am less likely to give the first possibility a lot of credence. It makes a lot more sense to me that any correlation is probably due to a third variable (i.e., the increasing liberalism of society).
Second, you can look at all the currently available data. If there is data showing a reverse correlation in some societies, possibility #1 is even less justified.
None of this means you should choose one possibility over another, but it does provide important context for future research on the issue.
I actually was enjoying your post up to this point, and appreciated responding to what you were saying. Why sully the discussion by resorting to personal attacks here and later in your post?
Again, please keep your comments focused on the topics and stay away from mudslinging. I’m asking this sincerely because I enjoy our ongoing conversation and believe it can be constructive. I see Mick as a troll and don’t respond to him on principle, but I would like to continue discussing these topics with you as long as we can stay mutually respectful. Fair?
The conclusions supporting the role of genetics in sexual orientation are not restricted to correlative data.
For example, the twin studies show a clear causal relationship between biology and sexual orientation. The experimental design controls for other effects, allowing the research to isolate the variance specifically predicted by the twins’ genetic makeup. This is because the incidence of homosexuality in identical twins (100% same genetic code) can be directly compared against the incidence in fraternal twins (50% same genetic code). Any noted differences are due specifically and uniquely to genetics.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
forlife wrote:
rainjack wrote:
So please - show me where the legislature acted on this.
The gay marriage bill was passed by the legislature, and subsequently vetoed by Schwarzenegger. This was in 2005, three years prior to the Supreme Court decision.
Thanks.
But it happened 5 years after the people spoke. So, that proves my statement that the legislature did not reperesent the will of the people. Arnold must have known this, or he would not have vetoed the bill.
The legislature’s action was meaningless anyhow, since it was vetoed. Then the activist court jumped in and gave the minority what they couldn’t get via open elections.
I guess we’ll see what happens in November. [/quote]
Yes, the gays have been running pro-gay marriage television ads here in California. I see them every time I turn on the TV. But there is no gay agenda.
[quote]forlife wrote:
rainjack wrote:
So please - show me where the legislature acted on this.
The gay marriage bill was passed by the legislature, and subsequently vetoed by Schwarzenegger. This was in 2005, three years prior to the Supreme Court decision.[/quote]
We voted in Schwarznegger also. Twice. Does he not represent the will of the people?
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
So I assume you could still choose to be attracted to 6 year olds with pig tails like you did in kindergarten, yes?
[/quote]
It’s a little different in my case, since I never had an attraction for women. I had a “girlfriend” for four years in high school/college but we never kissed once, lol.
I got married out of religious reasons, and unfortunately that led to a lot of unnecessary pain. I can’t say I regret it though, because I am still friends with my ex-wife and I have two beautiful children.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
But it happened 5 years after the people spoke. So, that proves my statement that the legislature did not reperesent the will of the people.[/quote]
Except that the will of the people can and often does change over time. Society has become increasingly supportive of marriage/civil unions for gays, even here in the U.S.
I know you don’t place much confidence in polls, but the majority of Californians oppose Proposition 8. Unless something changes, the proposition won’t pass and gay marriage will become permanent in California, as it is in Massachusetts.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Yes, the gays have been running pro-gay marriage television ads here in California. I see them every time I turn on the TV. But there is no gay agenda. [/quote]
What about those with a (I’ll avoid the dreaded “H” word) “anti-gay” agenda?
[quote]Advocates of Proposition 8, which would ban same-sex marriage, raised an estimated $3.7 million from Jan. 1 through June 30, by comparison with gay-rights advocates who went up against the measure, who raised an estimated $2.5 million over the same period of time…
The Protect Marriage alliance, the largest group supporting Proposition 8, raised about $2.6 million through June 30. Other activists backing the proposition, the National Organization of Marriage counting among them, raised roughly $1.1 million through June 30.[/quote]
[quote]forlife wrote:
rainjack wrote:
But it happened 5 years after the people spoke. So, that proves my statement that the legislature did not reperesent the will of the people.
Except that the will of the people can and often does change over time. Society has become increasingly supportive of marriage/civil unions for gays, even here in the U.S.
I guess we’ll see what happens in November.
I know you don’t place much confidence in polls, but the majority of Californians oppose Proposition 8. Unless something changes, the proposition won’t pass and gay marriage will become permanent in California, as it is in Massachusetts.[/quote]
The polls had Prop 22 going down in flames as well. It passed 61-39.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
We voted in Schwarznegger also. Twice. Does he not represent the will of the people?[/quote]
In that sense, all publicly elected officials represent the will of the people. However, it is the specific responsibility of the legislature to create laws that reflect the will of the people.
That said, Schwarzenegger has changed his stance, again perhaps as a reflection of the evolving will of the people:
[quote]May 21, 2008
Speaking in San Francisco yesterday, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) said he hopes that the state Supreme Court’s recent ruling allowing gay marriage will lead more couples to come to the state to be wed:
“You know, I’mm wishing everyone good luck with their marriages and I hope that California’s economy is booming because everyone is going to come here and get married.”
The San Francisco Convention and Visitors Bureau also expects a tourism boom this summer, and its website now promotes a gay travel section and explains that same-sex couples are “officially allowed to marry in the state of California.” Schwarzenegger has promised to oppose any amendments banning gay marriage.[/quote]
[quote]rainjack wrote:
So are you now equating homosexuality with child molestation?
You’re treading on the same ice as forlife’s insinuation that homosexuality is a mental condition like PTSD.
If you guys are going to argue for the gay side - maybe stop comparing it to stupid shit.
[/quote]
Er… no I’m not. I’m saying that if attraction was truly a conscious choice, you could choose to like anything you’ve ever liked. And when I was six, I liked other six year old girls. I didn’t start looking at big people porn until I was 12 :D.
Being attracted and acting on attraction are two truly different things. Gays could choose not to act on their desires, and that is certainly what many want them to do. However, homosexuality hurts no one, as opposed to the act of pedophilia. A child is an innocent being, a fellow full grown adult male is not the same.
[quote]forlife wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Yes, the gays have been running pro-gay marriage television ads here in California. I see them every time I turn on the TV. But there is no gay agenda.
What about those with a (I’ll avoid the dreaded “H” word) “anti-gay” agenda?
Advocates of Proposition 8, which would ban same-sex marriage, raised an estimated $3.7 million from Jan. 1 through June 30, by comparison with gay-rights advocates who went up against the measure, who raised an estimated $2.5 million over the same period of time…
The Protect Marriage alliance, the largest group supporting Proposition 8, raised about $2.6 million through June 30. Other activists backing the proposition, the National Organization of Marriage counting among them, raised roughly $1.1 million through June 30.[/quote]
As we’ve been arguing all along, we’re right, and you’re wrong. Homosexual marriage is not a value we should be promoting in this society, any more than fatherlessness, out-of-wedlock births, and promiscuity.
We don’t need to be validating and encouraging the behavior of a proselytizing, pathological group of people that spreads disease and its associated misery. As I’ve stated before, I don’t believe making “marriage” available to gays will accomplish a reduction in promiscuity, for the same reason it doesn’t accomplish it in heterosexuals. I’ve seen data that say that only 28% of homosexuals live in monogamous relationships now. If there were a great “need” for homosexuals to be monogamous, you’d think that number would be a lot higher.
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Being attracted and acting on attraction are two truly different things. Gays could choose not to act on their desires, and that is certainly what many want them to do. However, homosexuality hurts no one, as opposed to the act of pedophilia. A child is an innocent being, a fellow full grown adult male is not the same.
[/quote]
I’m not saying homosexuality is a good or bad thing. My problem is with the gay agenda.
My problem is with people saying that being gay is not a choice.
My problem is with people saying there is a genetic reason for being gay when there has never been one shred of proof to support their position.
Being gay is a choice until someone shows up with a copy of the human genome, and can point to the gay gene.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
As we’ve been arguing all along, we’re right, and you’re wrong.[/quote]
You’re entitled to your opinion, but don’t paint gays as having an agenda without admitting that anti-gays have their own agenda. Both groups proselytize.
To the contrary, gay marriage is beneficial for the couple, any children they may have, and for society in general due to the stability it provides. I noticed you never responded to my earlier point about gay marriage reducing the incidence of syphilus. Don’t you see that as a good thing? Don’t you think children are better off in a stable, loving home than in a foster facility or in an unmarried same sex family?
Again, if you really wanted to decrease the spread of disease you would encourage gay marriage.
Do you have evidence for the assertion that straight marriage doesn’t decrease promiscuity in heterosexuals?
Maybe you’re reversing cause and effect? Not everyone is going to choose marriage but why not make it available to those that do?
[quote]rainjack wrote:
My problem is with people saying that being gay is not a choice.[/quote]
If being gay were a choice, why couldn’t I have chosen to be straight and stay with my wife? Why is it that despite two decades of desperately trying to be straight, I was never able to change my sexual orientation?
Twin studies?
Mothers of gay men having a different X chromosome?
Also see the numerous references provided by Makavali.
[quote]Being gay is a choice until someone shows up with a copy of the human genome, and can point to the gay gene.
[/quote]
Chromosomes 7, 8, and 10 in gay men:
[quote]In the study, researchers analyzed the genetic makeup of 456 men from 146 families with two or more gay brothers.
The genetic scans showed a clustering of the same genetic pattern among the gay men on three chromosomes – chromosomes 7, 8, and 10. These common genetic patterns were shared by 60% of the gay men in the study. This is slightly more than the 50% expected by chance alone.
The regions on chromosome 7 and 8 were associated with male sexual orientation regardless of whether the man got them from his mother or father. The regions on chromosome 10 were only associated with male sexual orientation if they were inherited from the mother.[/quote]
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
We don’t need to be validating and encouraging the behavior of a proselytizing, pathological group of people that spreads disease and its associated misery. [/quote]
True. Shall we ban religions denying kids condoms then? I assume you’re all for prohibition of any and all recreational drugs yes?
How come I get friendly advice on the 5th page of an abortion thread, but here you are on page 12 of a gay marriage thread?
Hmmm?
But since I’m here, I’ll crap all over your points:
[quote]rainjack wrote:
I’m not saying homosexuality is a good or bad thing. My problem is with the gay agenda.[/quote]
Wouldn’t a gay person know better than you whether it’s a choice or not? Do you think that that many gays are liars?
Second, who the hell would choose a lifestyle that exposes them to mockery, ridicule, contempt, ostracization? Yeah, nice choice.
In the old gay thread, the one with Zeb and forlife that went on for 3000 pages, some studies were posted that suggested that the cause wasn’t gene related, but might be caused by an hormonal imbalance in the mother’s womb. The gay gene might be in the mother, not the individual.