Gay Marriage Amendment

[pookie]

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Very off topic, but I don’t think they’ve really determined what causes homosexuality (that is, the predilection for a sexual attraction to one’s own gender, not homosexual activity) yet, though they’re coming up with some excellent theories - and there are a lot of not-so-excellent ones as well. I’m going to paraphrase a summary of the reasearch that I’ve found.

I can list a few theories that I have heard or seen written up at one time or another. In very approximate order of scientific respectability, as best I can judge it, the theories are:

(1) Satan. Homosexuality may be a manifestation of Satan’s work…[/quote]

Probably a plot so that Satan can keep the hot chicks to himself. Other than that, it only show that about 3 billion people are wrong.

(2) Social Construction. There is no such thing as homosexuality.

Homosexuality is observed in animals, some of which have no “social constructions” to speak of. If we assume that the cause is the same for animals as it is for humans (and that might be a wrong assumption but…) then this one holds little water.

(3) Brain damage. Some insult to the tissues of the brain, perhaps at birth or in infancy, causes homosexuality.

Are there any studies supporting this one? It appears to me as a rather peculiar kind of brain damage.

(4) Choice. People choose to prefer their own sex over the other.

How many of you here feel you have a choice when it comes to feeling attracted to one sex or the other?

(5) Family influences in childhood. The Freudian belief is that having a weak father and/or dominant mother can form the child’s personality in the direction of homosexuality.

Would a strong father and weak mother create lesbian girls? There might be a market for this…

(6) Social stress. Rats kept in overpopulated environments, even when sufficient food and access to females are available, will become aggressively homosexual after the stress in the environment rises above a certain level.

Interesting. Although for humans, it does not appear as if gays come predominantly from stressful environments. As fas as I can tell, gays pretty much cover the spectrum of stress.

(7) Imprinting. The individual’s early sexual history can “imprint” certain tendencies on animals and humans. Many homosexuals report having been same-sexually molested in childhood or youth.

Plausible. But here again, there are a lot of gays who’ve had no such experience and are still gay.

(8) Socialization theories. The high levels of homosexual bonding in some ancient and primitive societies suggests that the common mores of a culture have some power to socialize large numbers of people into homosexuality.

The larger numbers might also simply be attributed to the relative ease of “coming out” in those society.

Even in repressive societies, gays are still to be found.

Here again, this would not explain homosexual behavior observed in animals.

(9) Genetics, direct. Homosexuality is the expression of some gene, or some combination of genes.

Also plausible. The only catch is that such a gene combination is not destined to be passed on to offsprings; unless heterosexual relations are also involved.

And from studies it appears that gays who have fathered children with a women before “coming out” have kids who show no more inclinations to be gay than kids from straight couples. IIRC, those were rather old studies; maybe more recent ones have better data to work with.

(10) Womb environment ? too much of a good thing. The presence of certain hormone imbalances during critical periods of gestation can have the effect of hyper-masculinizing the brain of a male infant. Paradoxically ? there are plausible biological arguments ? this might lead to the infant becoming homosexual.

Interesting. This one could apply to animals and would explain the lack of “gayness” in kids fathered by gay men.

(11) Infection. Homosexuality may be caused by an infectious agent ? a germ or a virus. This is the Cochran/Ewald theory, which made a cover story for the February 1999 Atlantic Monthly.

Similar to the previous one; would fit many observed facts.

(12) Genetics, indirect. Homosexuality may be an undesirable (from the evolutionary point of view) side effect of some genetic defense against a disease ? analogous to the sickle-cell anemia mutation, a by-product of genetic defenses against malaria, negative to the organism but nothing like as negative, net-net, as susceptibility to malaria.

This one is a better argument, genetic wise. It would make being gay not the trait itself, but a side effect of another genetic trait. This would explain the gay kids from straight parents and vice versa.

(13) Womb environment ? too much of the wrong thing. Here the effect of the rogue hormones is to feminize the brain of a male infant. (I assume that there are theories corresponding to 10 and 13 for female infants, though I have never seen them documented - which actually calls into question whether differing mechanisms might cause male and female homosexuality) This is the one that made a splash the other day: BBC NEWS | Health | Womb environment 'makes men gay'

Note that theories number 9, 10, 12, 13, and conditionally (depending on the age at injury or infection) 3 and 11, could all be taken as saying that homosexuality is “inborn,” while only two of these six theories have anything to do with genetics. The confusion between “genetic” and “inborn” is epidemic among the general public, however, to the despair of those attempting to have a more nuanced discussion of the topic.

Any of those study, especially the “social pressure” ones address the problem of homosexual animals?

In the current state of our understanding, I don’t believe that anyone can say for sure what’s true – but, noting the link above, number 13 seems to be the front runner. I think that numbers 12 and 13 currently hold the strongest positions, with much, though I think declining, interest and research in 9 and 10, modest but growing interest in 11, and some lingering residual attachment to 6, 7, and 8.

Don’t forget the popular backing of #1.

The other theories are not taken seriously by anyone doing genuine scientific research. If anyone has information to the contrary written up in a respectable peer-reviewed journal of the human sciences, it would be new to me and something I might like to read (at least the summary).

Now please explain how you’re such a gay expert…

Kidding.

[vroom]

All men are created equal, unless they are gay…

[BostonBarrister]

[quote]vroom wrote:
All men are created equal, unless they are gay…[/quote]

Sorry vroom, you’re not “created equal” because you’re not eligible for governmental benefit programs available to women, or affirmative action, or plans to give benefits to the poor. The law treats you differently. QED.

[pookie]

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
vroom wrote:
All men are created equal, unless they are gay…

Sorry vroom, you’re not “created equal” because you’re not eligible for governmental benefit programs available to women, or affirmative action, or plans to give benefits to the poor. The law treats you differently. QED.[/quote]

Even if he gets a sex-change operation, a very dark tan and gives away all his money?

[vroom]

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Sorry vroom, you’re not “created equal” because you’re not eligible for governmental benefit programs available to women, or affirmative action, or plans to give benefits to the poor. The law treats you differently. QED.[/quote]

Zzzzz.

[BostonBarrister]

vroom wrote:
All men are created equal, unless they are gay…

BostonBarrister wrote:
Sorry vroom, you’re not “created equal” because you’re not eligible for governmental benefit programs available to women, or affirmative action, or plans to give benefits to the poor. The law treats you differently. QED.

pookie wrote:
Even if he gets a sex-change operation, a very dark tan and gives away all his money?

I don’t think the tan would help, but the others would - and I would put up a serious part of the ante to see the resulting picture…

[pookie]

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

vroom wrote:
All men are created equal, unless they are gay…

BostonBarrister wrote:
Sorry vroom, you’re not “created equal” because you’re not eligible for governmental benefit programs available to women, or affirmative action, or plans to give benefits to the poor. The law treats you differently. QED.

pookie wrote:
Even if he gets a sex-change operation, a very dark tan and gives away all his money?

I don’t think the tan would help, but the others would - and I would put up a serious part of the ante to see the resulting picture…[/quote]

Maybe we can replace the tan with the reverse of what Micheal Jackson is doing (to his skin, not to kids), whatever that is.

[ZEB]

[quote]vroom wrote:
All men are created equal, unless they are gay…[/quote]

I wonder how come I’m not “equal” to those who are 25 and can join the Marines. I can pass the standard GI fitness examine with flying colors. But there is a law and that law says 40 somethings are not allowed to join.

Is that discrimination?

And if it is, is it a good idea?

[Solomon_Grundy]

[quote]pookie wrote:
Presumably you think that they could choose to “revert” to being normal?
[/quote]

Deeper than that. It takes something more, like action and commitment.

Whether the “something” that makes them gay happens before birth or after is of little importance.

It is very important. There is no proof that someone is born gay. There are studies that show that a person?s environment and relationships can have an effect on sexual preference.

The point is that at some point, through no choice of their own, they are attracted to people of the same sex. Are we in agreement up to this point?

In some cases I believe that it is a choice or the accumulation of many choices. I would agree that in the majority that ?something? is out of their control.

Where we differ is that you seem to think that they can simply “refuse” the urges and lead a normal, straight life. To me, that makes as much sense as someone straight saying that he could “refuse” to be attracted by women and force himself to sleep with men even if it’s “harder” or more work on his part. It simply makes no sense.

I never said it was simple. See first comment. We all have urges that we keep in check. Homosexuality is abnormal. Just because it would be difficult for someone to change does not mean that they shouldn?t try. If someone is a pedophile would you say the same thing? And no I do not equate the two other than I consider both atrocities.

Again, I wonder how that can make sense to you, unless sleeping with men or women is, in your case, a choice similar to choosing between chocolate or vanilla ice cream for dessert. In other words, either choice is equally possible with no biological urges stronger than a slight whim, or some adopted moral code, guiding your personal preference.

Choice plays a part in the same way that you can choose between right and wrong. You can not discount psychological/mental/emotional urges or needs. They can sometimes be stronger and more persistent than any biological need.

Homosexuality is detrimental to our society in many ways. It is highly detrimental to the family. If marriage is redefined then the families that our society is built on will fail.

Me Solomon Grundy

[harris447]

[quote]ZEB wrote:
harris447 wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Solomon Grundy wrote:
Where do you draw the line? I don?t hate gays. I just don?t support their life style.

Me Solomon Grundy

No no no…if you don’t support their lifestyle and agree to gay “marriage” that means that you automatically hate them.

It’s a PC law.

No, it means that intelligent people see that the phrase, “I dont support their lifestyle,” as code for, “I wish queers would just go away.”

Try substituting the word “jew” for “gay” and you see how it sounds.

No, it’s not even remotely similar. The constant attempt for those on your side of the fence on this issue to equate homosexuals to blacks or other minority groups is not valid.

As you know (hopefully) there is a true genetic difference regarding race and those of other ethnic backgrounds. Not so with homosexuals regardless of the constant lie, “we are born that way.”

Also keep this in mind: Not wanting to change a 5000+ year old institution so that two people of the same sex can marry has nothing to do with hatred harris.

No it’s not at all about hatred. It’s about societal norms. As many have previously stated, where do we draw the line with marriage rights?

Polygamists?

Those who practice incest?

I say we leave it right where it is so that it is clear to all sorts of “different” people that marriage is for one man and one woman.
[/quote]

Jews are not a race. Nor are Christians.

But…I don’t hate Christians, I just disagree with their lifestyle and think it’s detrimental to society.

Wow, that sounds stupid and bigoted, doesn’t it.

Just like you idiots.

[vroom]

Guys, I’m sure it is pretty complex for you to consider, but there is a basic philosophy behind the concept that people are created equal.

It has to do with respecting the circumstances of other people and letting them have the same access to the benefits of society where possible.

I do understand that there are differences from time to time, with respect to being able to perform something, or with respect to available opportunity.

For example, with pregnancy and child rearing duties, women often become dependent on a man or on government aid, and have trouble breaking those cycles. I suppose you can whine and cry that programs are in place to help make up that difference, to help them aspire to opportunities to better themselves as well.

Look, shitty programs can be put in place, but so can good ones. I’ve argued many times that allowing disadvantage people to become more integrated with the economy makes the economy stronger, improves the tax base and makes America stronger… why the fuck you guys are against those things I can’t figure out. Just choose good tools instead of the poor tools of the past.

Anyway Zeb, I’m sure even you were 25 at one point and had every opportunity to join the military if you had wanted to.

[ZEB]

[quote]harris447 wrote:
Jews are not a race. [/quote]

I said “ethnic backgrounds.”

All meaningful nasty insults aside. I don’t think anyone can actually converse with you as you have no idea what they are saying.

You apparently try to read the words but for some reason you are not seeing them…

It’s freaking weird.

[Solomon_Grundy]

[quote]
Jews are not a race. Nor are Christians.

But…I don’t hate Christians, I just disagree with their lifestyle and think it’s detrimental to society.

Wow, that sounds stupid and bigoted, doesn’t it.

Just like you idiots.[/quote]

Its amazing to me that when your argument fails you resort to name calling. Christians are a normal part of our society and homosexuals are not. Your argument doesn?t fly anyway you put it. You make it sound like people can?t be gay. They can be gay all they want to unless they commit a crime. That does not mean that society will or should accept their lifestyle. There is no reason to compromise the moral standards of our society any more than we already have.

Me Solomon Grundy

[Solomon_Grundy]

[quote]vroom wrote:
Guys, I’m sure it is pretty complex for you to consider, but there is a basic philosophy behind the concept that people are created equal.
[/quote]
In the eyes of God yes; in the eyes of man a resounding no! Equality is an illusion. We are not equal physically, socially or mentally. Some contribute to society and some do not. The one way that I think men are equal is when we consider that life itself has value.

It has to do with respecting the circumstances of other people and letting them have the same access to the benefits of society where possible.

This is an entitlement mentality. If you are considering giving marital benefits to homosexuals then what about singles? What about those that don?t have children? Following your line of thought, they should be entitled to the same consideration.

I do understand that there are differences from time to time, with respect to being able to perform something, or with respect to available opportunity.

For example, with pregnancy and child rearing duties, women often become dependent on a man or on government aid, and have trouble breaking those cycles. I suppose you can whine and cry that programs are in place to help make up that difference, to help them aspire to opportunities to better themselves as well.

Look, shitty programs can be put in place, but so can good ones. I’ve argued many times that allowing disadvantage people to become more integrated with the economy makes the economy stronger, improves the tax base and makes America stronger… why the fuck you guys are against those things I can’t figure out. Just choose good tools instead of the poor tools of the past.

This last part I don?t get. I thought we were talking about Gay Marriage. What I am against is rewarding bad behavior and not holding people accountable for their actions and choices. Giving them money or setting up some program where they don?t have to do anything is not the answer. That is called charity and is the job or churches and other non-profits. I have no problem with those that can?t work. I have a problem with those that can and won?t. You want to make the economy stronger? Take the burden of providing for slackers in society off the working class. Close the borders, increase punishments for those that hire illegal workers, get rid of welfare the way it is and punish those that commit crimes. Man will usually take the path of least resistance. Some in America have adopted this entitlement mentality that says ?regardless of what I do you should give me? . A prime example of this is the Katrina Victims. Were some of them in need? Yes, but if you live in a flood plane don?t be surprised if your house gets flooded. I would like to know how many of them took this as an opportunity to start a new life; find work and start rebuilding their life and family.

Me Solomon Grundy

[vroom]

[quote]Solomon Grundy wrote:
This is an entitlement mentality. If you are considering giving marital benefits to homosexuals then what about singles? What about those that don?t have children? Following your line of thought, they should be entitled to the same consideration.[/quote]

Oh please.

Entitlement systems are the bad policies of the past that I talked of. Get over it. There are good ways to incent people to become more productive in society.

It behooves us to do so.

As for your concerns about the evils of gay people being accepted by society, the problem is how you are defining that it is “wrong” but that it is okay that they live within the law.

Either it is wrong or it isn’t. If it is wrong, how come it isn’t against the law?

Is that what you’d prefer?

[pookie]

Solomon Grundy Deeper than that. It takes something more, like action and commitment.

Following that logic, we could then, if we applied ourselves to it, both become gay?

I don’t see sexual preference as being “changeable.”

It is very important. There is no proof that someone is born gay. There are studies that show that a person?s environment and relationships can have an effect on sexual preference.

But since there’s no proof either way (there are studies for many theories as BostonB’s post shows) adopting the position that it’s a “learned habit” is no more defendable.

In some cases I believe that it is a choice or the accumulation of many choices. I would agree that in the majority that ?something? is out of their control.

If it’s not under their control, how can you fault them for it?

We don’t jail the insane because we don’t consider them responsible for their actions; but you condemn gays for being such even if they have no more choice in the matter than someone who is insane?

I never said it was simple. See first comment. We all have urges that we keep in check. Homosexuality is abnormal.

Abnormal how? It is found all over in nature among many species. It is not the norm in the sense that it doesn’t lend itself to succesful procreation; but it can’t be called abnormal in the sense of “against nature.”

Just because it would be difficult for someone to change does not mean that they shouldn?t try. If someone is a pedophile would you say the same thing? And no I do not equate the two other than I consider both atrocities.

I’m not sure a pedophile can change either. He might be able to control his urges and refrain from acting upon them; but I don’t think he can change his sexual appetites so that he’s attracted to adults.

In my case, I do see a difference with pedophilia and homosexuality, because one involves a child. Children are unable to enter into relations with adults as equals or peers; hence need to be protected until they can truly participate in a relation as an equal.

Two adult homosexual men or women can deal as equal in their relation; and as such avoid the problem inherent in pedophilia.

Choice plays a part in the same way that you can choose between right and wrong.

I disagree. I don’t feeling an urge to do right or wrong; at least not in the sense of the urge I feel when I want sex with my wife. There are no physiological needs asking to be fulfilled by doing right or wrong.

You can not discount psychological/mental/emotional urges or needs. They can sometimes be stronger and more persistent than any biological need.

Maybe, but sexuality is quite physical and biological.

Homosexuality is detrimental to our society in many ways. It is highly detrimental to the family. If marriage is redefined then the families that our society is built on will fail.

Now that’s ridiculous. Homosexuality has been with us forever and families have at all time florished and been the basis for society. A lot of countries have allowed gay marriage and have suffered no social ills or problems that weren’t already present before.

Do you think that allowing gay marriage would prevent men and women from getting married and having children? If so, you have to explain that one to me, 'cause I don’t get that either.

[pookie]

Solomon Grundy Christians are a normal part of our society and homosexuals are not.

Really? There were homosexuals long before they were any Christians; and I’d bet we’ll still have homosexuals long after the last Christian has gone.

[Solomon_Grundy]

[quote]vroom wrote:

Entitlement systems are the bad policies of the past that I talked of. Get over it. There are good ways to incent people to become more productive in society.
[/quote]
I would love to get over it, but it is still going on. At least we can agree that there are good ways to get people more involved and productive in society. I do not believe that it is the government?s job as doesn?t fit into the purposes of the three branches of government.

[quote]
As for your concerns about the evils of gay people being accepted by society, the problem is how you are defining that it is “wrong” but that it is okay that they live within the law.

Either it is wrong or it isn’t. If it is wrong, how come it isn’t against the law?

Is that what you’d prefer?[/quote]

My point (not very well stated) is that legally right and morally right are not the same. Homosexuality is morally wrong. I am not suggesting ostracizing gay people. I am suggesting that their lifestyle is not normal and has a negative impact on the culture. By redefining marriage you would decrease it?s significance and give validity to a view that is contrary to the family.

Me Solomon Grundy

[Solomon_Grundy]

[quote]pookie wrote:
Following that logic, we could then, if we applied ourselves to it, both become gay?

I don’t see sexual preference as being “changeable.”
[/quote]
If both sexual preferences were equal then if we applied our selves, it is probably true that we could both become gay. Both sexual preferences are not equal, so that theoretical argument doesn?t work. I do see sexual preference as ?changeable?. If I believe that people are not born that way, then that implies that there was a change. That change can and should be undone. I realize that that doesn?t always happen, but it doesn?t mean that we shouldn?t try to.

But since there’s no proof either way (there are studies for many theories as BostonB’s post shows) adopting the position that it’s a “learned habit” is no more defendable.

Why is the position of a ?learned habit? not defendable? There have been many studies that have shown that lack of male leadership or molestation have affected a persons sexual identity.

If it’s not under their control, how can you fault them for it?

We don’t jail the insane because we don’t consider them responsible for their actions; but you condemn gays for being such even if they have no more choice in the matter than someone who is insane?

In cases where a person has been molested or the relationship/lack there of with a parent I don?t. I fault them once they know that their lifestyle is wrong and they choose to not change it. I also fault those that make bad choices that cause them to go down that path. Insane or mentally ill is used far too often today to remove personal responsibility. No one wants to accept that they did something wrong or even evil. It is easier to say I mentally ill than I am ?what ever they don?t want to be?.

Abnormal how? It is found all over in nature among many species. It is not the norm in the sense that it doesn’t lend itself to succesful procreation; but it can’t be called abnormal in the sense of “against nature.”

Just because it?s found in nature it doesn?t mean that its normal. There are a lot of abnormalities found in nature. I do not put mankind on an even footing with the rest of nature. That brings up another point. If you say that people are born gay then wouldn?t it stand to reason that it would be genetic in nature? Which would mean that it would be bread out?

In my case, I do see a difference with pedophilia and homosexuality, because one involves a child. Children are unable to enter into relations with adults as equals or peers; hence need to be protected until they can truly participate in a relation as an equal.

Two adult homosexual men or women can deal as equal in their relation; and as such avoid the problem inherent in pedophilia.

I already stated that I do not equate the two. I was speaking as in both being a sexual deviance. If you redefine marriage now, then why is it not conceivable that it could be redefined at a later time to include children, animals or polygamy? If not then why?

I disagree. I don’t feeling an urge to do right or wrong; at least not in the sense of the urge I feel when I want sex with my wife. There are no physiological needs asking to be fulfilled by doing right or wrong.

Would you cheat on your wife? Have you ever been tempted? If you have and you didn?t act on it then why not?

Maybe, but sexuality is quite physical and biological.

I assert that homosexuals became that way not completely because physical or biological needs, but emotional and psychological.

Now that’s ridiculous. Homosexuality has been with us forever and families have at all time florished and been the basis for society. A lot of countries have allowed gay marriage and have suffered no social ills or problems that weren’t already present before.

Greek, Rome, Babylonian empires all suffered, became weak and fell. If you do some research you will find that sexual deviance and the weakening of the family came shortly before the fall. The statement that other countries have not suffered any social ills is highly debatable. There are only four countries that allow same-sex marriage. There are around 25 that support domestic partnerships. I do not think we should follow.

[quote]

Do you think that allowing gay marriage would prevent men and women from getting married and having children? If so, you have to explain that one to me, 'cause I don’t get that either.[/quote]

Marriage becomes less significant by redefining it. Marriage will become less pure and open to other changes. That will weaken the bonds between marriage partners. There are more ways to damage the family than preventing them from having children. Some people today don?t even worry about getting married. That in itself makes you wonder why the homosexual community is so set on it. Most other things concerning the average American family they could care less about.

Really? There were homosexuals long before they were any Christians; and I’d bet we’ll still have homosexuals long after the last Christian has gone.

Maybe not long after the last Christian is gone, but at least for awhile. Canada already allows same sex marriage so why are you so interested in what happens down here in the bad and evil USA?

Me Solomon Grundy

[vroom]

[quote]Solomon Grundy wrote:
Canada already allows same sex marriage so why are you so interested in what happens down here in the bad and evil USA?[/quote]

We’re entralled and amazed by the brazen displays of ignorance and bigotry routinely put on display for our viewing pleasure…