Yeah, uh, I wanted studies that demonstrate a) the geneticity of homosexuality b) the psychological causes or lack thereof c) the environmental causes or lack thereof d) the lack of effectiveness of psychotherapy for it. I don’t want a bunch of references for different manuals. Peer reviewed studies, like the ones I linked earlier on PubMed. The ones you keep mentioning.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Quote polls all you want - they mean dick. The people spoke at the polls, and their will was ignored.[/quote]
So if polls don’t represent the will of the people, how about the fact that the California state legislature passed a gay marriage law? It wasn’t just a judicial decision, contrary to what you said earlier.
[quote]When enough states recognize gay marriage, then you might have room to whine. They don’t so you don’t.
[/quote]
What does that have to do with anything? You were asking why it couldn’t just be handled at the state level, and I pointed out that doing so would still deny gay couples all the federal benefits associated with straight marriage.
That’s why.
Whether or not you feel gay couples have the right to those benefits is a different issue. You’re welcome to your opinion, I was just answering your question.
[quote]Journal of Gay & Lesbian
Psychotherapy,[/quote]
LOL. There’s an aloof source.
Here, let me give you an example of what you ought to provide, forlife:
Haldeman, D. (2006). When conversion therapy fails: A review of Fish Can�??t Fly. Sexual and Relationship Therapy: web journal (October, 2006).
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
What they really want is validation of their lifestyle by everyone else and the law, not “rights.”[/quote]
I couldn’t care less what you think about gays. I don’t need or want your “validation”. What I do want is equality, and gays don’t currently have it (although we are making progress).
The issue is the more than 1,000 benefits granted to straight couples that are denied gay couples. The issue is also that gay couples, their children, and society would benefit from the stability provided by marriage/civil unions.
Keep reading.
To the contrary, I’ve stated several times that it is likely environmental factors are also at work. I think sexual orientation develops as a result of both genetics and environment. Are you similarly fairminded and honest in recognizing the role of both factors?
If it was “wrong”, it would harm society. The medical and mental health organizations have concluded that gay marriage would, in fact, benefit both the couple and society.
[quote]forlife wrote:
So if polls don’t represent the will of the people, how about the fact that the California state legislature passed a gay marriage law? It wasn’t just a judicial decision, contrary to what you said earlier.[/quote]
Legislatures don’t speak for the will of the people. They speak for themselves, as evidenced by the cali legislature acting at the direction of the court instead of how the people voted.
Please.
[quote]What does that have to do with anything? You were asking why it couldn’t just be handled at the state level, and I pointed out that doing so would still deny gay couples all the federal benefits associated with straight marriage.
That’s why.
Whether or not you feel gay couples have the right to those benefits is a different issue. You’re welcome to your opinion, I was just answering your question.[/quote]
Show me where I ever asked such a question. I didn’t.
The only question I had was a rhetorical one, and referred to the eroding sovereignty of states rights.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Dude, the constitution is pretty self evident. Show me the passages about gay marriage.[/quote]
I could show you the passages cited by the California Supreme Court, but what would that accomplish? You would only claim they are misinterpreting the passages. The “misinterpretation” argument can be used against anything that you don’t personally agree with.
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”.
Forget about the comparison. I’m asking what is logically wrong about the following statement, independent of any analogy to gays:
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”.
Equality is not guaranteed under the Constitution. Karl Marx guaranteed it, but not the founders of this country.
Yes, that’s what I call the HIV incidence amongst male homosexuals: a harm to society.
[quote]To the contrary, I’ve stated several times that it is likely environmental factors are also at work. I think sexual orientation develops as a result of both genetics and environment. Are you similarly fairminded and honest in recognizing the role of both factors?
[/quote]
Yes. But you keep bringing up the genetic factors. Still, some people are more genetically prone to murder than others. We don’t call murder “right” because somebody has a genetic inclination for it. I’ve yet to hear somebody give the defense in court, "Gee, judge, I’ve got genes that made me prone to do what I did. " The act of homosexuality isn’t like murder (HIV transmission aside), but you get the idea.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
It either shows up in the child, or it doesn’t. “Might” is the language of subjective opining. That may work for you, but not for those who are waiting on some real proof.[/quote]
When I said I don’t know if the X chromosomal difference shows up in the children, I wasn’t “subjectively opining”. I have no idea if research has evaluated that question or not. My point was that the answer is irrelevant to this particular question, because the study still shows that the mothers of gay children have a different chromosomal makeup. You can’t explain that fact from a “nurture” perspective.
Here’s a reference:
As noted in the article:
Pretty much what I’ve been arguing all along.
Take a course in statistics then. Scientific proof doesn’t mean 100% certainty. In science, hypotheses are posited, experiments are designed, data are gathered, and statistics are run to determine the probability of rejecting the null hypothesis. It’s all about probability.
You have no objective evidence to support your beliefs about homosexuality, contrasted with the scientific evidence of hundreds of peer-reviewed studies. It is a no brainer who is more likely to be correct.
Fair enough. Then consider my point that your experience with your sister-in-law doesn’t pertain to the general likelihood that sexual orientation is a choice.
So back to my point on post traumatic stress disorder. If what you said above is true, how do you reconcile the fact that mdespite the best counseling, therapy, and drugs many people suffer from PTSD their entire lives? They can’t simply choose to turn off how their environment shaped them.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Yeah, uh, I wanted studies that demonstrate a) the geneticity of homosexuality b) the psychological causes or lack thereof c) the environmental causes or lack thereof d) the lack of effectiveness of psychotherapy for it. I don’t want a bunch of references for different manuals. Peer reviewed studies, like the ones I linked earlier on PubMed. The ones you keep mentioning. [/quote]
Several of the references in the list I provided fall into that group, and many in turn include their own references to scientific research. I can provide some specific studies if you’re interested.
Before we go there, what happened to your point earlier about going with the conclusions of scientific research, and the dangers of taking things out context? Regardless of what you might personally conclude from these studies, the fact is that the scientists that actually conducted the studies and understand the context and controls in place have drawn a number of unanimous conclusions regarding sexual orientation. Why don’t you accept that these conclusions have merit?
Here’s a good rebuttal to the fraternal birth order argument:
http://www.narth.com/docs/nearly.html
This one’s a good read:
http://www.narth.com/docs/concluded.html
[quote]
Thus, some individuals develop homosexuality presumably from earlier sexual abuse. As in nearly all diseases/disorders, both physical (genetic) and psychological (environmental) factors may play a role in varying amounts in particular individuals. One gay male may have definite feminine characteristics that would play a role in his sexual orientation, while another gay male with prominent masculine secondary sex characteristics may have in his history environmental factors to account for his homosexuality. (p. 197)[/quote]
In fact, this whole page is good:
http://www.narth.com/menus/cstudies.html
[quote]
Several of the references in the list I provided fall into that group, and many in turn include their own references to scientific research. I can provide some specific studies if you’re interested.[/quote]
Please do.
You obviously don’t know a thing about science. Scientific conclusions are highly faddish, and scientists are highly prone to groupthink, and scientists with theories outside the current dogma, (despite their merit or support), are often marginalized.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Dude, the constitution is pretty self evident. Show me the passages about gay marriage.
I could show you the passages cited by the California Supreme Court, but what would that accomplish? You would only claim they are misinterpreting the passages. The “misinterpretation” argument can be used against anything that you don’t personally agree with.
[/quote]
Please do. I would like to see what they are using.
[quote]
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”.
There you go again making a false comparison. Skin color is not the same as gender.
Forget about the comparison. I’m asking what is logically wrong about the following statement, independent of any analogy to gays:
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”.[/quote]
Because your example limits people by race. Mine does not limit by race or sexual preference. It merely recognizes that marriage is a union between a man and a woman. You want to change that. This is not getting a right you currently don’t have. You have the same right to marry a woman I do.
[quote]forlife wrote:
I’m not sure why you’re arguing that law enforcement doesn’t play a role in protecting the life, property, and happiness of others.[/quote]
Most people that must deal with the police are not happy. I am talking about those minor drug offenders (an non-violent crimminals) the state has turned into criminals. 99% of all police work is done after a crime has already been committed. On a theoretical level, if government were possible to impose on people in a completely moral way the only need for police would be to protect against malum in se.
Discrimination is not immoral. That is just your PC way of dealing with ideas you don’t like. People may not like you because you are gay. They may not want to serve you. They may not want to let you on their property. That is too bad for you. Deal with it. You have no rights that involve other people’s property – that includes their tax dollars to fund special interests, etc.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Do you support completely removing the role of government in marriage then? Would you be content for it to be a simple mutual commitment, with no legal responsibilities or benefits?[/quote]
In general yes. I do not like the fact that the government gets it’s hands into everything. This is just giving more power over to the government. Other then assisting with being the impartial party in a divorce, I dislike their involvement in the whole issue.
It is kind of a liberal idea that marriage emanates from the government. (Or that anything really emanates from the government.) With the government involved, they decide what is good and bad, and are allowed to make more decisions about how we live our lives. If the government was not involved, would this even be an issue for you?[quote]
I agree with you that people should only marry when they truly love each other. However, I think the responsibilities/benefits provided by government help ensure stability in the relationship and in society as a whole. Ideally people would stay together solely because they love each other, but the reality is that every relationship goes through rough periods. The legal infrastructure of marriage provides both sticks and carrots for staying in the relationship.[/quote]
If the government was suddenly not involved to the extent it is, I think there would not be the rush to divorce you seem to imply. The power again is not with the government, but with that simple promise made at the ceremony.
The key is not to expect government to help us out, but to work on that relationship ourselves. The government won’t make any relationship healthier, but will help keep unhealthy relationships together.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
[…]In fact, this whole page is good:
http://www.narth.com/menus/cstudies.html[/quote]
Ping - finally someone’s brought up NARTH. I can’t believe it - not again… groan.
No, it’s not a good site. It’s in fact mostly complete crap, and this has been re-iterated in long and painful discussions on the topic. Please feel free to look at all my posts on the topic (and there have been dozens), as I have in length, depth and with all sources properly accounted for pointed out how crap and isolated NARTH from the reality of serious science is. Or read the discussion on so-called ex-gay sites (read fundamental religious) and the legends around how the APA changed its view on this (DSM III btw, not IV if I remember correctly). My brain still hurts.
Obviously, this will not suffice - and I probably can’t make you see the difference between science and non-science. But there’s always hope…
Oh, and you wanted PubMed to start reading up on the real science, here goes:
On the variety of biological factors on sexual orientation:
Quantitative and theoretical analyses of the relation between older brothers and homosexuality in men
H-Y antigen and homosexuality in men
Proportion of homosexual men who owe their sexual orientation to fraternal birth order: An estimate based on two national probability samples
The relation of birth order to sexual orientation in men and women
Genetic Factors Increase Fecundity in Female Maternal Relatives of Bisexual Men as in Homosexuals
New Evidence of Genetic Factors Influencing Sexual Orientation in Men: Female Fecundity Increase in the Maternal Line
Sexually antagonistic selection in human male homosexuality
Actually, the more I read here, there more forlife’s arguments make sense (and I did struggle with some of the concepts namely Darwinian paradox, X-chromosomal connection and evolutionary advantage).
On so-called ‘reparative therapy’:
I’m your handyman: a history of reparative therapies
Position statement on therapies focused on attempts to change sexual orientation (reparative or conversion therapies)
(this one is just a reference - just go to the APA site, there you can read it)
The practice and ethics of sexual orientation conversion therapy
Nursing implications in the application of conversion therapies on gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender clients
For the sake of a fair and balanced argument, here’s what Spitzer and Nicolosi have contributed for the minority view (these I have comments on):
Can some gay men and lesbians change their sexual orientation? 200 participants reporting a change from homosexual to heterosexual orientation
Quick note on that one: Spitzer’s probands where selected via a variety of ex-gay organisations and - NARTH. Talk about self-selection. Here’s a commentary on the study:
Beliefs and practices of therapists who practice sexual reorientation psychotherapy
That one just points out how the proponents of ‘reparative therapies’ are convinced that they are acting for the benefit of their ‘patients’. Nothing wrong with that - if there wasn’t the overall agreement that the ‘therapy’ itself was unethical…
OK, that’s it for the moment.
Makkun
PS: NARTH, goddamn, not again…
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
[…]I’ll spell out what it “says” just for you. It says that I’m well aware you’re well known for holding just about every liberal belief that exists. In addition to that I was not responding to you but another poster who also seems to be well aware of your many posts which always seem to end up siding with the far left.[/quote]
And your perceived (and for the record: incorrect) analysis of my views means that they are less valid because they aren’t congruent with yours? Thats quite a statement, especially as I haven’t seen you address any topical issues. And it’s kinda funny, given the The Mage meant it as a joke, and you didn’t. 
[quote]That you consider my few words a personal attack is just silly, but then liberals are quite thin skinned…hate speech and other such nonsense.
There…are we clear now, or do we need several more posts to rectify the matter?[/quote]
Wow, you’re really revealing a lot about your attitude towards people who don’t share your views. Yes, I was a bit offended, given that you took the opportunity to address my personality rather than my argument. And just did it again. Alright, I admit it, I was baiting you. But you were such an easy mark…
Cool, I like the growl in your writing. Makes me feel intimidated. Lol.
Makkun
[quote]forlife wrote:
A right is a right. Clearly, gays don’t currently enjoy the same rights that are granted to straights regardless of whether you categorize them into “negative” or “positive” rights.[/quote]
Incorrect - there is a vast difference between the kinds of rights. Just because you don’t want there to be doesn’t mean there isn’t.
[quote]Current law in most states discriminates against gays. The question is whether or not this discrimination is morally and socially justified.
I believe it is not, on both counts. Morally, it perpetuates inequality based on sexual orientation, a trait which people cannot choose and cannot change. Socially, it denies gay couples, any children they may have, and society in general of the increased stability that ensues from marriage.[/quote]
I believe it is, on both counts. The legal and cultural inequality that exists reflects a natural, realistic inequality between the two kinds of relationships.
Gay couples do not, in the broad sense, have children. We, as society, want to promote the coupling of the biological parents of a given child. Nothing in the gay agenda promotes that non-negotiable rule, and as such, pursuing alternative arrangements is an exercise in folly.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
And yet you tried to compare gay relationships to relationships between people of different skin color.[/quote]
Bullseye.
Forlife wants the comparison to interracial marriage to stick - even though it is not a good parallel - because he thinks it helps him.
He continually deflects the comparison to polygamy, saying it has nothing to do with gay marriage, even though, under his own theory, it most certainly does. After all, Forlife is in “rights” territory - but he conveniently skips providing an answer to your question regarding your hypothetical “right” to marry more than one person.
Why does he do this? He knows that it leads to a crucial argument against his Crusade. Forlife whistles past polygamy and in true Black Knight fashion declares that he has a “victory!” over that argument, when he has no such thing.
The question remains: does Zap have a “right” - a right being denied - to marry more than one woman?
Does the California Supreme Court and California constitution, imbued with magical powers apparently - demand a “right” for Zap?
If not, why not?