Gay Marriage Amendment

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

Quite so, though, I still think I would be in disagreement with any law, amendment or definition that would implicitly or explictly state that certain persons can not take part in certain institutions becauue it is defined in such a way that deems it illegal. To me, states should not have the right to make such laws.[/quote]

That doesn’t make any sense. You disagree with any law that does something that is illegal?

You can deny homosexuals all kinds things under law - doing so is not ‘illegal’. You may prefer a different policy choice, and that is fine, but don’t call it ‘illegal’ - it’s not.

62

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

Quite so, though, I still think I would be in disagreement with any law, amendment or definition that would implicitly or explictly state that certain persons can not take part in certain institutions becauue it is defined in such a way that deems it illegal. To me, states should not have the right to make such laws.

That doesn’t make any sense. You disagree with any law that does something that is illegal?

You can deny homosexuals all kinds things under law - doing so is not ‘illegal’. You may prefer a different policy choice, and that is fine, but don’t call it ‘illegal’ - it’s not.
[/quote]
Please re-read the paragraph. It makes perfect sense. Yes, I understand ‘legally’ any thing can be written into law that does not contradict the constitution. It does not make it morally right–and as a corollary–just because it is illegal doesn’t make it morally wrong. Therefore, I would disagree with it. I am sure you can think of many instances where this might be aplicable.

63

Bottom line:

I think gay marriage is a debate about whether you think gay people are part of the human condition or just a random fetish.

64

Well, it was fun while it lasted, but they voted to stop wasting their time and to move on to other topics…

65

[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
Bottom line:

I think gay marriage is a debate about whether you think gay people are part of the human condition or just a random fetish.[/quote]

What? Being part of the human condition has nothing to do with it. Pedophiles are part of the human condition, but we don’t want them to be able to marry either (marry kids that is).

This issue is that marriage is a religious institution. It started thousands of years before Christ and represents the Judeo-Christian values.

66

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
This issue is that marriage is a religious institution. It started thousands of years before Christ and represents the Judeo-Christian values.

[/quote]

What about other religions…should we not allow non judeo-christian cultures to take part? I am an atheist am I not allowed to take part in this tradition? Am I not allowed to reap the benefits of marriage becasue I do not believe in JC? Modern day marriage is much more complex than you make it out to be. Otherwise we would not see divorce and these other issues.

67

All the more reason to keep it out of the constitution then…

68

Homosexuality is a genetic anomaly.
Who you have sex with or who you prefer sexually is not the root of homosexuality but a result of it.

Homosexual men, for instance, exhibit a brain response to male pheromones virtually identical to the response a heterosexual female exhibits to male pheromones.

Although it hasn’t been proven, i believe this response is manafested from genetics, not from one gene, but from the interactions of several genes that contribute to hormonal and pheramonal response.

I believe also that these genes are so closely tied that they can activate each other interchangeably in certain circumstances, which is why no one specific activation is necessary to start the chain, leading to exponentiation or non linear progression of the possible activation paths leading to homosexual pheromone response as the population grows.

This is why it has never been proven that any one specific factor, whether it be heredity or environment, definitevely results in homosexuality.

The great overwhelming difference that homosexuality has versus other genetic anomalies is the huge psycological impact it has without exhibiting any real anatomical effect.

I’m not a proffesional, but that’s my theory none-the-less.

69

[quote]Goal=Colossus wrote:
Homosexuality is a genetic anomaly.
Who you have sex with or who you prefer sexually is not the root of homosexuality but a result of it.

Homosexual men, for instance, exhibit a brain response to male pheromones virtually identical to the response a heterosexual female exhibits to male pheromones.

Although it hasn’t been proven, i believe this response is manafested from genetics, not from one gene, but from the interactions of several genes that contribute to hormonal and pheramonal response.

I believe also that these genes are so closely tied that they can activate each other interchangeably in certain circumstances, which is why no one specific activation is necessary to start the chain, leading to exponentiation or non linear progression of the possible activation paths leading to homosexual pheromone response as the population grows.

This is why it has never been proven that any one specific factor, whether it be heredity or environment, definitevely results in homosexuality.

The great overwhelming difference that homosexuality has versus other genetic anomalies is the huge psycological impact it has without exhibiting any real anatomical effect.

I’m not a proffesional, but that’s my theory none-the-less.[/quote]

There are many that agree with this.

If it is true that homosexuality has physical causes rather than being a choice it opens a huge can of worms.

What if a “cure” was developed?

70

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
What if a “cure” was developed?
[/quote]

Yeah, this would bring about WWIII between religious conservatives and the left. We would then have to face the fact that homosexualty left unchecked was a choice–or proof of your socioeconomic standing. I could see tons of christians donating their money to ‘cure’ homosexuality.

71

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
What if a “cure” was developed?

Yeah, this would bring about WWIII between religious conservatives and the left. We would then have to face the fact that homosexualty left unchecked was a choice–or proof of your socioeconomic standing. I could see tons of christians donating their money to ‘cure’ homosexuality.
[/quote]

It would be messy as hell.

Maybe it would be better not to know the causes.

72

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
This issue is that marriage is a religious institution. It started thousands of years before Christ and represents the Judeo-Christian values.[/quote]

Marrige was not started as a religious institution.

Your sense of history is F’ed up son!

73

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
This issue is that marriage is a religious institution. It started thousands of years before Christ and represents the Judeo-Christian values.

What about other religions…should we not allow non judeo-christian cultures to take part? I am an atheist am I not allowed to take part in this tradition? Am I not allowed to reap the benefits of marriage becasue I do not believe in JC? Modern day marriage is much more complex than you make it out to be. Otherwise we would not see divorce and these other issues.[/quote]

Anyone can take part in this age-old tradition. You just can’t change the parameters of the tradition and then call it marriage. The parameters of marriage clearly state one man and one woman. So if you adhere to those guidelines you can participate even as an atheist.

Next, divorce was part of marriage when originally given. And it appears that it was used frequently. More recently Jesus changed those parameters to only include death and spouse unfaithfulness.

So depending on if you are a Jew or a Christian you will have different parameters for divorce. However, in no case has the one-woman one-man parameter ever been changed.

74

[quote]vroom wrote:
This issue is that marriage is a religious institution.

All the more reason to keep it out of the constitution then…[/quote]

Agreed!

75

[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
This issue is that marriage is a religious institution. It started thousands of years before Christ and represents the Judeo-Christian values.

Marrige was not started as a religious institution.

Your sense of history is F’ed up son![/quote]

I’m afraid it was as documented in the Bible and the dead sea scrolls, which are thousands of years older than any history book you want to mention, support this fact.

Get a life bro!

76

[quote]Goal=Colossus wrote:
Homosexuality is a genetic anomaly.
Who you have sex with or who you prefer sexually is not the root of homosexuality but a result of it.

Homosexual men, for instance, exhibit a brain response to male pheromones virtually identical to the response a heterosexual female exhibits to male pheromones.

Although it hasn’t been proven, i believe this response is manafested from genetics, not from one gene, but from the interactions of several genes that contribute to hormonal and pheramonal response.

I believe also that these genes are so closely tied that they can activate each other interchangeably in certain circumstances, which is why no one specific activation is necessary to start the chain, leading to exponentiation or non linear progression of the possible activation paths leading to homosexual pheromone response as the population grows.

This is why it has never been proven that any one specific factor, whether it be heredity or environment, definitevely results in homosexuality.

The great overwhelming difference that homosexuality has versus other genetic anomalies is the huge psycological impact it has without exhibiting any real anatomical effect.

I’m not a proffesional, but that’s my theory none-the-less.[/quote]

I am a professional, and your theory loosely incorporates many biological facts. As occurs in other mammals, pheromones activate genes in cells of tissue in a very specific area of the brain (the hypothalamus). A small area of this small part of the brain is responsible for controlling the pulsatile secretion of a hormone called gonadotropin releasing hormone (GnRH), which basically controls concurrent maturation of the neuroendocrine system, reproductive system and central nervous system.

As some people here may know, it is GnRH that primarily impacts testosterone secretion. The effect of pheromones on GnRH allows pheromones to elicit behavioral affects, including those that are manifest in sexual preferences. But by the time the behavioral affects are manifest, we have been repeatedly exposed to pheromones from the opposite or from the same sex. The genetically predisposed effect on hormones (via hypothalamic GnRH pulses) is associated with the circumstances of exposure from the day we are born. The associations between pheromone exposure, hormonal effects, and very subtle behavioral affects are as thoroughly ingrained in our biologically-based psyche as are associations with food preferences (which are also chemically, or odor-based preferences.)

All this is detailed in book publication as in peer-reviewed journals. Rather than add more details here, anyone who is interested can google “human pheromones” and “James Kohl” for up-to-date information. Later this year, a lengthy review of the topic will be published in the Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality.

The same group of researchers who reported on the pheromonal activation of the brain, which varied with sexual orientation in males, has now reported similar findings in females (lesbians vs. heterosexual women, though I prefer not to “label” sexual preferences.

Of more interest to this discussion may be the typical effect of pheromones on testosterone levels. For example, my colleague Astid Jutte reported a 150% increase in testosterone in men who were exposed to a synthetic blend of naturally occuring chemicals found in the vaginal secretions of ovulatory phase women (called copulins). Her experiment has yet to be replicated, but anecdotal information that correlates well with her report is abundant. For those who are taking a “natural” approach to increasing their testosterone level, this adds means to a potentially desireable end.

77

LOL! I don’t think I’ve ever found reading to the end of one of these threads quite so gratifying. Mostly it’s just so much ad hominem knifing by message 20 or so. But since the above was posted, 36 hours of silence is deafening. You can almost hear the audience weigh the alternative: “Hmmm. Bash gays some more for defying God’s law, or admit it was all bosh and sniff some panties?” Some posting here no doubt will do both.

You could listen to somebody who’s been grouchy elsewhere about peer review, or you could just ask some gay folks. Was that a choice you made there, gay dude? But if the science is right on the pheromones, after a while it will get experimentally confirmed and published even if the scientific culture isn’t ready.

As for the can of worms to be opened up by a “cure”, or more accurately if you will, an ability to chemically manipulate sexual orientation, if such an ability could be had, would simply open up new possibilities of human experience.

But such intervention would be an unnatural manipulation of nature, because homosexuality occurs in very many animal species. I’m sure that means the religous element should come down against this, yes? Gee, it is all so confusing.

And to Zap, who said “Maybe it would be better not to know the causes.”

Hey dude, the truth shall make you free.

78

[quote]jvkohl wrote:
Goal=Colossus wrote:
Homosexuality is a genetic anomaly.
Who you have sex with or who you prefer sexually is not the root of homosexuality but a result of it.

Homosexual men, for instance, exhibit a brain response to male pheromones virtually identical to the response a heterosexual female exhibits to male pheromones.

Although it hasn’t been proven, i believe this response is manafested from genetics, not from one gene, but from the interactions of several genes that contribute to hormonal and pheramonal response.

I believe also that these genes are so closely tied that they can activate each other interchangeably in certain circumstances, which is why no one specific activation is necessary to start the chain, leading to exponentiation or non linear progression of the possible activation paths leading to homosexual pheromone response as the population grows.

This is why it has never been proven that any one specific factor, whether it be heredity or environment, definitevely results in homosexuality.

The great overwhelming difference that homosexuality has versus other genetic anomalies is the huge psycological impact it has without exhibiting any real anatomical effect.

I’m not a proffesional, but that’s my theory none-the-less.

I am a professional, and your theory loosely incorporates many biological facts. As occurs in other mammals, pheromones activate genes in cells of tissue in a very specific area of the brain (the hypothalamus). A small area of this small part of the brain is responsible for controlling the pulsatile secretion of a hormone called gonadotropin releasing hormone (GnRH), which basically controls concurrent maturation of the neuroendocrine system, reproductive system and central nervous system.

As some people here may know, it is GnRH that primarily impacts testosterone secretion. The effect of pheromones on GnRH allows pheromones to elicit behavioral affects, including those that are manifest in sexual preferences. But by the time the behavioral affects are manifest, we have been repeatedly exposed to pheromones from the opposite or from the same sex. The genetically predisposed effect on hormones (via hypothalamic GnRH pulses) is associated with the circumstances of exposure from the day we are born. The associations between pheromone exposure, hormonal effects, and very subtle behavioral affects are as thoroughly ingrained in our biologically-based psyche as are associations with food preferences (which are also chemically, or odor-based preferences.)

All this is detailed in book publication as in peer-reviewed journals. Rather than add more details here, anyone who is interested can google “human pheromones” and “James Kohl” for up-to-date information. Later this year, a lengthy review of the topic will be published in the Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality.

The same group of researchers who reported on the pheromonal activation of the brain, which varied with sexual orientation in males, has now reported similar findings in females (lesbians vs. heterosexual women, though I prefer not to “label” sexual preferences.

Of more interest to this discussion may be the typical effect of pheromones on testosterone levels. For example, my colleague Astid Jutte reported a 150% increase in testosterone in men who were exposed to a synthetic blend of naturally occuring chemicals found in the vaginal secretions of ovulatory phase women (called copulins). Her experiment has yet to be replicated, but anecdotal information that correlates well with her report is abundant. For those who are taking a “natural” approach to increasing their testosterone level, this adds means to a potentially desireable end.

[/quote]

So you are saying that it is pheromones that cause a guy to want to get busy with children?

Since you don’t want to talk about sexual orientation (for fear of the PC police), then you need to think a little further about the outcome of your theories. If pheromones are responsible for attraction than pedophilia is biological in nature. And if that is the case, then our laws preventing this biological expression are futile and in fact contrary to nature.

79

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
Since you don’t want to talk about sexual orientation (for fear of the PC police), then you need to think a little further about the outcome of your theories. If pheromones are responsible for attraction than pedophilia is biological in nature. And if that is the case, then our laws preventing this biological expression are futile and in fact contrary to nature.

[/quote]

That’s nuts. Laws are there to prevent human beings from doing things they “naturally” would’ve done otherwise, or to protect society from those who would “naturally” do it harm. Laws against murder aren’t futile just because some people are naturally (biologically) prone to extreme anger problems.

Further, just because someone is sexually aroused (regardless of the mechanism) doesn’t mean that he cannot control himself to any extent. Pedophiles don’t rape children in the middle of the street in broad daylight, completely incapable of stopping themselves.

80

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
jvkohl wrote:
Goal=Colossus wrote:
Homosexuality is a genetic anomaly.
Who you have sex with or who you prefer sexually is not the root of homosexuality but a result of it.

Homosexual men, for instance, exhibit a brain response to male pheromones virtually identical to the response a heterosexual female exhibits to male pheromones.

Although it hasn’t been proven, i believe this response is manafested from genetics, not from one gene, but from the interactions of several genes that contribute to hormonal and pheramonal response.

I believe also that these genes are so closely tied that they can activate each other interchangeably in certain circumstances, which is why no one specific activation is necessary to start the chain, leading to exponentiation or non linear progression of the possible activation paths leading to homosexual pheromone response as the population grows.

This is why it has never been proven that any one specific factor, whether it be heredity or environment, definitevely results in homosexuality.

The great overwhelming difference that homosexuality has versus other genetic anomalies is the huge psycological impact it has without exhibiting any real anatomical effect.

I’m not a proffesional, but that’s my theory none-the-less.

I am a professional, and your theory loosely incorporates many biological facts. As occurs in other mammals, pheromones activate genes in cells of tissue in a very specific area of the brain (the hypothalamus). A small area of this small part of the brain is responsible for controlling the pulsatile secretion of a hormone called gonadotropin releasing hormone (GnRH), which basically controls concurrent maturation of the neuroendocrine system, reproductive system and central nervous system.

As some people here may know, it is GnRH that primarily impacts testosterone secretion. The effect of pheromones on GnRH allows pheromones to elicit behavioral affects, including those that are manifest in sexual preferences. But by the time the behavioral affects are manifest, we have been repeatedly exposed to pheromones from the opposite or from the same sex. The genetically predisposed effect on hormones (via hypothalamic GnRH pulses) is associated with the circumstances of exposure from the day we are born. The associations between pheromone exposure, hormonal effects, and very subtle behavioral affects are as thoroughly ingrained in our biologically-based psyche as are associations with food preferences (which are also chemically, or odor-based preferences.)

All this is detailed in book publication as in peer-reviewed journals. Rather than add more details here, anyone who is interested can google “human pheromones” and “James Kohl” for up-to-date information. Later this year, a lengthy review of the topic will be published in the Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality.

The same group of researchers who reported on the pheromonal activation of the brain, which varied with sexual orientation in males, has now reported similar findings in females (lesbians vs. heterosexual women, though I prefer not to “label” sexual preferences.

Of more interest to this discussion may be the typical effect of pheromones on testosterone levels. For example, my colleague Astid Jutte reported a 150% increase in testosterone in men who were exposed to a synthetic blend of naturally occuring chemicals found in the vaginal secretions of ovulatory phase women (called copulins). Her experiment has yet to be replicated, but anecdotal information that correlates well with her report is abundant. For those who are taking a “natural” approach to increasing their testosterone level, this adds means to a potentially desireable end.

So you are saying that it is pheromones that cause a guy to want to get busy with children?

Since you don’t want to talk about sexual orientation (for fear of the PC police), then you need to think a little further about the outcome of your theories. If pheromones are responsible for attraction than pedophilia is biological in nature. And if that is the case, then our laws preventing this biological expression are futile and in fact contrary to nature.

[/quote]

It’s amazing to me the combination of stupidity, ignorance, and bigotry required to constantly–CONSTANTLY–conflate homosexuality with pedophilia.