Quoting LOT767-300ER (Reply 98): shall be eliminated/and or kept to a minimum as the overwhelming majority are born with a purpose to further the species over the long period of time.

You make it sound like homosexuals are sterile, and have no desire to care for children or have a family.

[Edited 2012-02-08 21:00:17]

Quoting mt99 (Reply 100): You make it sound like homosexuals are sterile, and have no desire to care for children or have a family.

I dont know where you are getting that from. I made no mention of "homosexuals are unable to care for children or have families"

However, you cant have a family without reproducing. If you are homosexual how can you reproduce (take away test tubes for one minute because that is a man made invention). The moment you have sex to reproduce you are no longer homosexual.

Take away society for a second and think about it scientifically. If you are going to use arguments such as "I am homosexual and I adopt to enhance my family" that is well laughable, an albino can adopt as well and care for the family just as much as anyone else.

Like I said, its not something to be discriminated against. It causes absolutely no harm to anyone.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 99): So I don't exist? Or are you accusing me of lying when I say that I was born this way?

Can you read?

I never said anyone chooses to be gay. If you had basic comprehension of English you would realize that I just wrote that one has no choice and is born that way because of hormonal imbalance to start out with.

You look foolish going on a tirade saying I think you should be discriminated against when I just wrote about why you should not be discriminated against.

Quoting LOT767-300ER (Reply 101): you can't have a family without reproducing

So a man, that marries a woman who has a child from another man cannot be a family?

I hope I'm misundertanding. Otherwise, what you said is truly hurtful to adopted children.

Quoting LOT767-300ER (Reply 101): The moment you have sex to reproduce you are no longer homosexual.

I knew several gay men that came out after fathering children with women.

[Edited 2012-02-08 21:13:51]

Quoting mt99 (Reply 103): So a man, that marries a woman who has a child from another man cannot be a family? I hope I'm misunderstanding. Otherwise, what you said is truly hurtful to adopted children.

Where in the hell are you getting family from? What does the ability or want of having a family have to do with anything?

Quoting mt99 (Reply 103): I knew several gay men that came out after fathering children with women.

What is your point? That is purely societal pressure. If you took these societal pressures away human nature dictates that a woman would not have sex with a gay male just for the sake of a child because the woman would want love and to care for the offspring as a family unit and would seek out a male that would want to reciprocate the same feelings with her. Those are human traits, we aren't Salmon or Alligators.

You could also get raped by a woman and have a child that way, does not mean you are straight. Does not mean that is normal behavior either and you can nitpick on those levels all you want.

[Edited 2012-02-08 21:27:39]

Quoting LOT767-300ER (Reply 104): Where in the hell are you getting family from? What does the ability or want of having a family have to do with anything?

Dude, from right here, your own post! do you forget what you post?

Quoting LOT767-300ER (Reply 101): you cant have a family without reproducing

Quoting LOT767-300ER (Reply 104): If you have sex with a woman by choice then you are not homosexual.

Again, i know gay men who lived married to women for many many years and fathered children.They are not homosexuals? Ill be sure to let them know.

Quoting LOT767-300ER (Reply 104): If you got raped that is another story.

I really don't know what to say to this... I am floored that someone would say this.

Maybe when the shock wears off, i can respond

Quoting mt99 (Reply 105): Dude, from right here, your own post! do you forget what you post?

No. I never said "a gay person does not want a family or is unable to care for a child" Show me where I said that.

Quoting mt99 (Reply 105): Again, i know gay men who lived married to women for many many years and fathered children.They are not homosexuals? Ill be sure to let them know.

How are they gay if they are married to and having sex with women? They are bisexual. That is not gay.

Quote: I really don't know what to say to this... I am floored that someone would say this. Maybe when the shock wears off, i can respond

It happens. Deal with it.

You want to take it to a less graphic level look at Michael Jackson. Same concept.

[Edited 2012-02-08 21:33:10]

Quoting LOT767-300ER (Reply 98): Scientifically speaking the explanation of why someone is black (or white, asian etc.) is the same + the reasons why someone is a certain race or has certain cranial features is with purpose.

Possible cause and purpose seem to be a bit confused here. Some mutations may give rise to benefits over time and become adopted while others may die out. But none of that suggests "purpose" as that suggests conscious change rather than random mutation. So giraffes suddenly decided one day that it would be better if they had longer necks so that they could reach higher branches rather than giraffes that just so happened to have longer necks had greater access to food and could pass on their genes.

And who says that there is no benefit to society from some of the population being homosexual? While people who are homosexual can reproduce, perhaps the fact that of being attracted to one's own sex has the "purpose" of reducing population pressures. Fewer mouths to feed in times of scarcity. More soldiers to defend the herd without leaving widows and orphans. OK, it stands in the way of the biblical injunction to "be fruitful and multiply" but it seems as much a "scientific" theory as any other arguing the contrary.

Quoting LOT767-300ER (Reply 104): If you took these societal pressures away human nature dictates that a woman would not have sex with a gay male just for the sake of a child because the woman would want love and to care for the offspring as a family unit and would seek out a male that would want to reciprocate the same feelings with her.

While lesbian women may not be salmon or alligators they are very much human beings and can, and do, seek to have children while not being married to a man.

Human nature is not as rigid as you imply.

[Edited 2012-02-08 21:40:09]

Quoting LOT767-300ER (Reply 106): Show me where I said that.

If you would stop and not edit your past posts! to cover your tracks

Its ok dude, you showed your true colors. I still can't believe that you make light of rape to further your point.

Nice job in deleting that.

Quoting LOT767-300ER (Reply 106): How are they gay if they are married and having sex with women? They are bisexual. That is not gay.

Past tense, sweety.. past tense.. The word "LIVED' is past tense...

Quoting mt99 (Reply 105): Again, i know gay men who lived married to women for many many years and fathered

Quoting LOT767-300ER (Reply 106): How are they gay if they are married and having sex with women? They are bisexual. That is not gay.

How big is your world?

Quoting LOT767-300ER (Reply 101):

"However, you cant have a family without reproducing. If you are homosexual how can you reproduce (take away test tubes for one minute because that is a man made invention). The moment you have sex to reproduce you are no longer homosexual."
This statement just illustrates that you haven't got a good grasp on what homosexuality is. It is not just the physical act of sex. The actual sexual act is pretty much incidental, and myself included, I know of many people straight and gay that had relationships that didn't involve sex at all. Does sexual intercourse define your life? If it does, I feel sorry for you.

Quoting mt99 (Reply 103):

"I knew several gay men that came out after fathering children with women."
Most gay men in this country have had some level of sexual interaction with females be it experimentation, late realization, denial, or hiding due to constrains our society has placed on homosexuals. The ridiculous stigma attached by some can cause a great deal of confusion, and it is not talked about in a non-judgmental way. It's an issue a lot of us have had to grapple with and do some rather clumsy fumblings because of piety and religiously-influenced "scientific" closed-mindedness.

Quoting LOT767-300ER (Reply 101):

"Take away society for a second and think about it scientifically. If you are going to use arguments such as "I am homosexual and I adopt to enhance my family" that is well laughable, an albino can adopt as well and care for the family just as much as anyone else."
As for the first part of your statement...you can't just single out one facet of the issue for your convenience. Well, I guess you could try, but it neuters your credibility. As for the second part, that's precious. I get a good laugh when people grasp at straws. Nobody's saying an albino couldn't. As it is, straight people incapable of conceiving (perhaps you're unaware that only about 60% of conceptions naturally make it to delivery) adopt all the time to enhance their family. Plenty of men and women are both straight and completely incapable of conceiving. Nobody's lining up in hatred and prejudism to keep them from getting married.

[Edited 2012-02-08 21:50:40]

Quoting Quokkas (Reply 107): Possible cause and purpose seem to be a bit confused here. Some mutations may give rise to benefits over time and become adopted while others may die out. But none of that suggests "purpose" as that suggests conscious change rather than random mutation. So giraffes suddenly decided one day that it would be better if they had longer necks so that they could reach higher branches rather than giraffes that just so happened to have longer necks had greater access to food and could pass on their genes. And who says that there is no benefit to society from some of the population being homosexual? While people who are homosexual can reproduce, perhaps the fact that of attracted to one's own sex has the "purpose" of reducing population pressures. Fewer mouths to feed in times of scarcity. More soldiers to defend the herd without leaving widows and orphans. OK, it stands in the way of the biblical injunction to "be fruitful and multiply" but it seems as much a "scientific" theory as any other arguing the contrary.

You are confusing genetic adaptations. Being homosexual is not a genetic adaptation like a giraffes neck or perhaps humans mutating to have no tail.

Your second paragraph would have merit if being gay was a recessive/dominant gene such as a long neck on a giraffe or a tail on a monkey to balance on trees. It is not. There is no such thing as the "gay gene"

Quoting Quokkas (Reply 107): While lesbian women may not be salmon or alligators they are very much human beings and can, and do, seek to have children while not being married to a man. Human nature is not as rigid as you imply.

I agree with you that they do. However, since we are not alligators or salmon we seek to have offspring with those that care and love us. Lesbian women do not want a family neither do they love males. Hence if you took away technology by say a nuclear war and we were sent back to the stone age how would these lesbian women actually have children?

Frankly, I'd like to have 12 fingers, it may be possible to do this because of technology right now in the year 2012. However if the year was 20,000 B.C. or in fact 20,000 A.D after a global war and there was no electricity or modern medicine it would not matter what I would want because I could not physically have it. Human nature is best tested where there is no pressure from society or man made inventions that alter your choices as those can be very well be only temporary.

Quoting LOT767-300ER (Reply 98):

Quoting LOT767-300ER (Reply 101):

Just some advice, you should probably be clearer when explaining things. You did come off as offensive sounding, and you claim no harm, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt... just some advice

And remember, people can benefit society greatly without having kids... if reproduction was the only thing a species needed, rabbits would rule the world  

Why are you calling me sweety and saying I showed my true colors. We don't even know each other.

Quoting luckyone (Reply 109): As for the first part of your statement...you can't just single out one facet of the issue for your convenience. Well, I guess you could try, but it neuters your credibility. As for the second part, that's precious. I get a good laugh when people grasp at straws. Nobody's saying an albino couldn't. As it is, straight people incapable of conceiving (perhaps you're unaware that only about 60% of conceptions naturally make it to delivery) adopt all the time to enhance their family. Plenty of men and women are both straight and completely incapable of conceiving. Nobody's lining up in hatred and prejudism to keep them from getting married.

I am not following you where I believe that someone should be discriminated against because they are unable to conceive a child? I have not made one statement that said that.

Both of you are blind to the fact not once have I said somewhere "I oppose gay marriage and I believe we should discriminate." I find it to be hilarious that you are so blinded to the point that you are saying I said something and then arguing with it, essentially with yourselves.

Quoting luckyone (Reply 109): This statement just illustrates that you haven't got a good grasp on what homosexuality is. It is not just the physical act of sex. The actual sexual act is pretty much incidental, and myself included, I know of many people straight and gay that had relationships that didn't involve sex at all. Does sexual intercourse define your life? If it does, I feel sorry for you.

Do you think I am that daft that I dont know that homosexuality is the attraction and identity not simply a physical act? If you do no big deal, it doesnt really change my world other than a good laugh.

Quoting luckyone (Reply 109): Most gay men in this country have had some level of sexual interaction with females be it experimentation, late realization, denial, or hiding due to constrains our society has placed on homosexuals. The ridiculous stigma attached by some can cause a great deal of confusion, and it is not talked about in a non-judgmental way. It's an issue a lot of us have had to grapple with and do some rather clumsy fumblings because of piety and religiously-influenced "scientific" closed-mindedness.

The only person bringing up religion or stigma is you. Do I look look like Rick Santorum that believes we should discriminate against yourself or mt99 because an imaginary figure in the stratosphere told me so on top of a mountain 2000 years ago? Let me repeat not once have I said we should discriminate or it is acceptable to discriminate. I am not going to constantly beat that into everyone's head in this thread because all it does is remind me of "If you tell yourself a lie over and over again over time it will become the truth"

Quoting LOT767-300ER (Reply 110): Lesbian women do not want a family neither do they love males.

Wrong. They may not wish to live in your definition of a family. The fact that they wish to marry and have children is indicative that they want as much as others to enjoy the comforts of family. Just that their definition of family differs from yours.

And who says that lesbians don't love men? Not all love is sexual. You are confusing love with copulation and procreation. They are not the same thing although the former may include the latter.

Quoting LOT767-300ER (Reply 98): There is absolutely no purpose to being born homosexual as it stems from you being born from a hormonal imbalance (read medically not normal) and if you subscribe to evolution any trait that does not give an advantage in surviving or reproducing (depending on your natural environment) will die off.

Quoting LOT767-300ER (Reply 98): Black people were discriminated against based on false assumptions that they were worth less by nature. But I would make the point that the average black person is worth the same as any person of any other race. By definition you are worth less as a homosexual to the evolutionary cycle because you bring forth nothing to do table genetics wise, and even if you did,

You are so very uneducated (and insulting to an entire valued group in society) on this aspect on evolution and societal dynamics it almost doesn't bear correcting... However becasue I am felling generous:
I take it then that you can state fully that worker bees have absolutley no benefit generationally or genetically or societally to bees and their colonies? Right? The worker bees don't procreate, they just work and care for and defend the hive. Gee, kinda like Doc.... he works, and cares for the children of our society.

A non-reproducing individual can be a huge benefit to a group and society. And is is proven that they don't just die off and the trait disappears as the trait has been around for thousands of years, even though it has technically been sorted against (homosexuals have been persecuted and thought of as "less than' and killed for thousands of years as well) yet it still survives and persists. Why? Because it is an advantage for society.

You really need to do some basic reading on biodiversity within species and how non-reproducing groups within those species are quite important. Gee I guess you could even look at wolves and others hierarchical species where only one male contributes at a time and the rest just protect and challenge each other for "rights" to procreate. But that still means the majority of the males don't procreate.

Tugg

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 111): Just some advice, you should probably be clearer when explaining things. You did come off as offensive sounding, and you claim no harm, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt... just some advice And remember, people can benefit society greatly without having kids... if reproduction was the only thing a species needed, rabbits would rule the world

If I gave a flying donkeys rear about not being offensive constantly in this great country of ours that I have adopted id probably by now be calling fat people "Persons of Size" and the Mexican lawn guys "Lawn Technicians of Latin Origins". Doesn't change that they are fat and Jose is from Guadalajara. Those are just facts. I dont have the time to ponder about why someone might be offended when nothing offensive was really said and people seem to have caught a PC cold. BTW, if you were here 6-7 years ago you'd know this thread ain't jack on the s***-o-meter scale.

Indeed, it reminds me of the time someone in this country said I hate Polaks and im a xenophobe when I made a self-comedic joke. Morons.

As for rabbits, they overtake whole ecosystems because of their fast reproductions. Point proven. Once they learn how to swim and fly properly we're all screwed, especially the pigeons.

Ok well my other point of advice still comes into play:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 111): you should probably be clearer when explaining things

because either we're all retarded and aren't getting what you're saying or you're doing a lousy job of explaining things. Sorry dude

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 79):

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 82):

Just when I think that I've heard every ridiculous anti-gay marriage argument, I'm proven wrong. Gay marriage is discrimination against singles because of tax advantages? Unbelievable...

Quoting mt99 (Reply 88): Is that you reason for opposing gay marriage?

I continue to be floored by the lengths people will go to find reasons to oppose the legalization of gay marriage. Honestly, I'd have so much more respect for people if they just came out and said "I don't like gay people, and I don't think that they should be allowed to marry." Crap such as discrimination against singles is a cop-out.

Quoting LOT767-300ER (Reply 98):

 

Quoting LOT767-300ER (Reply 101): The moment you have sex to reproduce you are no longer homosexual.

Says who? You clearly don't know much about homosexuality. Just because you have sex with someone of the opposite sex doesn't mean that you cease being homosexual.

Quoting LOT767-300ER (Reply 106): How are they gay if they are married to and having sex with women? They are bisexual. That is not gay.

Do you know a lot of gay people? I can assure you that there are plenty of gay men out there who are/were married and having sex with women. They are not bi, they are gay. They were never sexually attracted to their wives, but only married them due to various influences. Again, having sex with someone of the opposite sex does not automatically make you bisexual.

Quoting mt99 (Reply 108): I still can't believe that you make light of rape to further your point.

Yeah that's pretty awful.

Quoting Quokkas (Reply 113): Wrong. They may not wish to live in your definition of a family. The fact that they wish to marry and have children is indicative that they want as much as others to enjoy the comforts of family. Just that their definition of family differs from yours. And who says that lesbians don't love men? Not all love is sexual. You are confusing love with copulation and procreation. They are not the same thing although the former may include the latter.

It seems as if our definition of love is different when it comes to having a family and procreating, I wasnt talking about "my lesbian friend is unable of loving me as a friend because she is lesbian". Ill leave it at that.

Quoting tugger (Reply 114): A non-reproducing individual can be a huge benefit to a group and society. And is is proven that they don't just die off and the trait disappears as the trait has been around for thousands of years, even though it has technically been sorted against (homosexuals have been persecuted and thought of as "less than' and killed for thousands of years as well) yet it still survives and persists. Why? Because it is an advantage for society.

I dont even know where to begin with this. If a non-reproducing individual does not pass a genetic trait he/she sees the trait dies off and disappears. In addition just because something has survived does not mean it is an advantage for society. Mind telling me what advantage we have in society from albinos? They happen because a natural abnormality that occurs when there are chemical inbalances. Nothing more, nothing less.

You base your whole argument on the fact that you dont need 100% of the subjects in the species to procreate. This is obvious, some will die, some cant have offsprings for natural reasons, some get cancer etc. I fail to see what this has to do with passing on a particular trait as being homosexual is not something you can pass along.

Quoting OA412 (Reply 117): Says who? You clearly don't know much about homosexuality. Just because you have sex with someone of the opposite sex doesn't mean that you cease being homosexual.

Says the damn definition of the word bi, which is more than one.

Quoting OA412 (Reply 117): Do you know a lot of gay people? I can assure you that there are plenty of gay men out there who are/were married and having sex with women. They are not bi, they are gay. They were never sexually attracted to their wives, but only married them due to various influences. Again, having sex with someone of the opposite sex does not automatically make you bisexual.

By physical definition they are bi. Doesn't matter how much you argue.

This is like the born again virgins argument - "I didnt want to have sex but I did it because society forced me to do it" and then they say they are virgins. Well yea, they may be emotionally but not medically they are not. I dont really give a flying F about the emotional definition as I was talking about physical and statistical states that took out societal pressures from the beginning.

[Edited 2012-02-08 22:48:17]

Before the thread drifts off into a discussion of the impact of paleodrainage systems on genetic variation of Simoselaps (Neelaps) bimaculatus, perhaps we can come back to Proposition 8. Or is it now too late?

It seems that the judgement was written narrowly so that it could only apply to California and even avoid going to the USSC. Perhaps if Protect Marriage wants to appeal a ruling might have wider effect. How likely is it that Protect Marriage will appeal? (The only sources I have been able to read state that they are still considering an appeal.)

Quoting LOT767-300ER (Reply 118): If a non-reproducing individual does not pass a genetic trait he/she sees the trait dies off and disappears.

But you are wrong, here's a simple example: You can have non-producing members from the same family, the same genetic material. The non-producing member(s) of that family still tends to be more protective of the family and the offspring of that family thereby providing that family and *his* genetics a better chance to survive into the future.

Very simple.

Quoting LOT767-300ER (Reply 118): You base your whole argument on the fact that you dont need 100% of the subjects in the species to procreate. This is obvious, some will die, some cant have offsprings for natural reasons, some get cancer etc. I fail to see what this has to do with passing on a particular trait as being homosexual is not something you can pass along.

As you see from above, the trait can survive quite well and in fact it could be a selecting trait that contributes to the success of a genetic branch. The more individuals that can be available to care for the offspring, the more likely that branch will succeed and procreate further. So having a portion of your family that does not attempt to create offspring that compete for the family resources but instead will more likely contribute their time and energy to the family will increase the success of the family.

It could be that just 10% additional population that does not compete for the procreative resources increases the genetic success of that branch of a species.

Quoting Quokkas (Reply 120): perhaps we can come back to Proposition 8.

  

Tugg

[Edited 2012-02-08 22:55:23]

Quoting Quokkas (Reply 120): Before the thread drifts off into a discussion of the impact of paleodrainage systems on genetic variation of Simoselaps (Neelaps) bimaculatus, perhaps we can come back to Proposition 8. Or is it now too late? It seems that the judgement was written narrowly so that it could only apply to California and even avoid going to the USSC. Perhaps if Protect Marriage wants to appeal a ruling might have wider effect. How likely is it that Protect Marriage will appeal? (The only sources I have been able to read state that they are still considering an appeal.)

Thanks. Hah, never too late. I think they are already appealing because the judge said no same-sex couple can marry in CA until all of the appeals are over. If the case was definite then we'd probably see marriages restart tomorrow.

The real issue that we should be discussing however is why does the religious lobby hold such power that they can force laws upon people which goes against free will in this country and I am not defining this to only same sex marriages. On one hand it is obviously historical but I would have thought especially the citizens of CA gotten over this considering their rather socially liberal mindset?

In my view this is also a common sense issue and its honestly hard not to relate prop 8 to say American speed limit or some alcohol laws. They make no sense, serve no purpose and restrict people in A) the name of safety or B) in the name of the good of society.

Quoting tugger (Reply 121): But you are wrong, here's a simple example: You can have non-producing members from the same family, the same genetic material. The non-producing member(s) of that family still tends to be more protective of the family and the offspring of that family thereby providing that family and *his* genetics a better chance to survive into the future.

Thank you for proving my point.

It would be and I wouldnt have this argument with you if homosexuality was based on pure genetics not like it has been scientifically proven to be first and foremost hormonal imbalances. You do absolutely nothing as a non-producing member of your family to help the chance of homosexuality surviving in the future as there is no gay gene. You cannot pass homosexuality like you can: skin color, eye color, hair color, 6 fingers etc.

If your family is blond and the neighbors next door all have black hair and you want to protect the blond you protect your family. It is mathematically by genetics proven that you stand a much greater chance of having a blond offspring. If someone in your family of 4 is gay and your next door neighbors family of 4 are all straight there is not a SHRED of evidence that says your family's offspring has a greater chance of being gay than the offspring coming from the 100% straight family next door. Indeed, you might as well just play the powerball at this point.

Hence my whole argument.

Ill take a truce with you and give you at least the peace of mind when I tell you that I will vote FOR same sex marriage everytime it comes up on the ballot in my (socially conservative) state.

[Edited 2012-02-08 23:19:43]

Quoting LOT767-300ER (Reply 110): Lesbian women do not want a family neither do they love males.

I find issue with this one. Fine, I'll go along with the second part of that sentence, but the first part? Lesbian women do not want families? I'm friends with a lesbian couple who just had their first child, maybe I need to let them know that they don't actually want it?

Quoting LOT767-300ER (Reply 119): By physical definition they are bi. Doesn't matter how much you argue.

But you yourself stated in an earlier post that you are aware of the fact that it's not simply about physical actions, but rather sense of identity. So why stick to using "physical definition"?

Cheers
Mats

Quoting LOT767-300ER (Reply 123): It would be and I wouldnt have this argument with you if homosexuality was based on pure genetics not like it has been scientifically proven to be first and foremost hormonal imbalances. You do absolutely nothing as a non-producing member of your family to help the chance of homosexuality surviving in the future as there is no gay gene. You cannot pass homosexuality like you can: skin color, eye color, hair color, 6 fingers etc. Hence my whole argument my friend.

Except that there are many factors that are genetically controlled, such and hormones, that are passed on in each generation and they are either selected in or out if they contribute to the success of the species. The science is still not complete on it but there does not have to be a "gay gene" for there to be a genetic component to being homosexual. There can be several genes that interact and affect one another that could be the cause. Or it could be the genes in a certain combination cause the hormones to be balanced properly to create a homosexual nature in an individual.

I am not saying this is what happens, I am saying we don't know and there is the distinct possibility.

But beyond that, and to head back to the actual thread topic, we are humans and we do exceed a "just genetic" requirement for our species currently. We don't need to have it be genetic or to care really what causes it to understand and allow that if someone is homosexual, we can accept them freely.

And if that person should fall in love with someone and choose to get married, we as individuals and as a society do not need to be offended or disallow that person from being with and marrying the one they love. And finally, last I checked, neither marriage nor love (as humans experience it) were genetic. In fact love could be, and has been called, a massive hormone imbalance itself.  
.

Quoting LOT767-300ER (Reply 122): I think they are already appealing because the judge said no same-sex couple can marry in CA until all of the appeals are over. If the case was definite then we'd probably see marriages restart tomorrow.

The Prop 8 folks have two weeks to file their appeal and have indicated that they will do so. Also they have a strategic choice to make as to whether they appeal it to the full 9th Circuit Court or to take it to the US Supreme Court. The decision the 3 member panel handed down was very narrow and limited it to only California and as such the Supreme Court may uphold the ruling//decline to hear the case.

Tugg

[Edited 2012-02-08 23:41:22]

Quoting Doona (Reply 124): I find issue with this one. Fine, I'll go along with the second part of that sentence, but the first part? Lesbian women do not want families? I'm friends with a lesbian couple who just had their first child, maybe I need to let them know that they don't actually want it?

Should read: do not want families with males as partners. My bad on that.

Quoting Doona (Reply 124): But you yourself stated in an earlier post that you are aware of the fact that it's not simply about physical actions, but rather sense of identity. So why stick to using "physical definition"?

Because it is about the physical definition when you are talking about it from an evolutionary and mathematical perspective and looking at the big picture over millenia. Consider this, if homosexuality was a gene trait like hair color right now you could calculate who to have children with in order maximize continuation of that trait. You cant.

Quoting tugger (Reply 125): And if that person should fall in love with someone and choose to get married, that we as individuals and as a society do not need to be offended or disallow that person from being with and marrying the one they love. And finally, last I checked, neither marriage nor love (as humans experience it) were genetic. In fact love could be, and has been called, a massive hormone imbalance.

I 100% agree with you, and thus support your cause. And now I shall retire from this thread and sing kumbaya.

Can anyone just explain to me what is wrong with a gay relationship without the words "The Bible says..."?

Who the F cares? Just because I swing for Adam and Eve doesnt mean my love for my lady friend is any greater than that of someone advocating for Adam and Steve....


Sure, the Christian religion, per 'THE BIBLE' says homosexuality is a capital offense, but it also says that a woman disrespecting her husband is as well, a child misbehaving shall be stoned to death and that we should all own slaves.

At some point even the religious nuts need to take a step back and realize most people are not 'orthodox' whatever the dumb religion of the day is and accept people for whatever their decisions may be (dont get me started on the whole 'not my decision' thing, I am advocating for gay rights), and accept people for who they are because if I recall my dumb Sunday School teachings correctly, 'Thou shalt not pass judgement lest ye be judged' was far more prevalent than 'Thou shalt stick thy nose in others' business and prohibit one from loving one with the same hardware'....

Seriously, unless you ARE God and we all face you on judgement day, shut up and let people live their lives without your bullshit input...

My $.02

Quoting LOT767-300ER (Reply 127): I 100% agree with you, and thus support your cause. And now I shall retire from this thread and sing kumbaya.

Time for me as well, and so without further ado:

Kum bay ya, my Lord, kum bay ya;
Kum bay ya, my Lord, kum bay ya;
Kum bay ya, my Lord, kum bay ya,
O Lord, kum bay ya.

Someone's laughing, my Lord, kum bay ya;
Someone's laughing, my Lord, kum bay ya;
Someone's laughing, my Lord, kum bay ya,
O Lord, kum bay ya.

 

Tugg

Please forgive the off-topic nature of this post. Just needed bit of levity.

[Edited 2012-02-08 23:51:54]

Quoting LOT767-300ER (Reply 112):

"Do you think I am that daft that I dont know that homosexuality is the attraction and identity not simply a physical act? If you do no big deal, it doesnt really change my world other than a good laugh."
Quite frankly, yes. Despite your insistence to the contrary, your entire argument and your defense of it points to gross ignorance RE homosexuality.

Quoting LOT767-300ER (Reply 112):

"The only person bringing up religion or stigma is you."
You asked why gay men have children with women. I told you why, and growing up gay in the Bible Belt, I know a thing or two about it. Apparently you didn't like my answer and deflected it.

Quoting LOT767-300ER (Reply 112):

"Do I look look like Rick Santorum that believes we should discriminate against yourself or mt99 because an imaginary figure in the stratosphere told me so on top of a mountain 2000 years ago?"
If not, you've done a fabulous job of imitating it.

How about you actually go learn about gay people, and refrain from telling us what we are or what we want and why we want it, since you obviously are a bit misguided.

Quoting LOT767-300ER (Reply 98): By definition you are worth less as a homosexual to the evolutionary cycle because you bring forth nothing to do table genetics wise

A gay couple's ability to "benefit society", is not (and should not be) limited to genetics. I would argue there are far more important benefits. As Quokkas pointed out, population pressures are reduced. And given the huge number of unwanted and/or abused children in the world, we should all welcome a population that is interested in adopting rather than procreating.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 111): Just some advice, you should probably be clearer when explaining things. You did come off as offensive sounding

Agreed. Whether he intends to or not, LOT767-300ER has, over the years, made a habit of posting in a very inflammatory and disrespectful manner.

Quoting ATCtower (Reply 128): Sure, the Christian religion, per 'THE BIBLE' says homosexuality is a capital offense, but it also says that a woman disrespecting her husband is as well, a child misbehaving shall be stoned to death and that we should all own slaves.

It seems to me that the modern christian religion is built upon a vast foundation of contradictions, to be rearranged as needed according to the set of fears and bigotry most popular on any given day.

I'm not a lawyer but I think that when you strip away all the extraneous arguments the Gay Marriage debate comes down to a fundamental Constitutional question:

- Some believe that the "Free Exercise" clause empowers religious people/groups to use government lawmaking to build or preserve an environment that is compatible with the religious worldview of the majority. This would include regulating the definition of 'marriage' among other things.

- Others believe that the "Establishment" clause should prohibit the making of laws that favor any particular religious views at the expense of other people's freedom. To them, laws limiting the freedom of gay people to enjoy (or suffer LOL) the same kind of marriage that straight people do is a de facto establishment of a religious view as 'Official' and therefore Unconstitutional.

So, the religious person who is against 'Gay Marriage' percieves the California decision as an attack on his/her religious freedom, while others see it as the Court accurately interpreting the Constitution and fostering equal rights under the law.

Admittedly there have been some attempts to make secular arguments against Gay Marriage but when you dig into what people mean by 'sanctity of marriage', 'family', or 'fabric of society' you find that a religious view is at the root of it. Nobody is suing gay couples for compensatory damages caused by their union.

Personally, I support the Establishment clause view because allowing laws to be made by majority rule on solely religious grounds is just begging to trample on the right of smaller religious groups or athiests to have their own "Free Exercise". I have always believed that the intent of the Founders was to preserve the basic rights of 'out groups' rather than validate the will of the mob, but perhaps I've been wrong? But it does beg the question of why we'd even need a Bill of Rights if majority rule was their intent.

Either way I think Christians would have a different definition of "free exercise" and view the relationship between religion and government differently if they weren't such a large majority of the US population.

[Edited 2012-02-09 07:08:22]

Trying to argue it is a genetic abnormality that will die off because gays don't reproduce, is sort of futile. The genetic trait is passed by straight people, who are NOT gay, and appears often too frequently and in a large population, especially if you are trying to label it as a genetic anomaly. Being albino, having Down's Syndrome, and other genetic conditions are "anomalies." If you want to call them that, because they happen so rarely, but homosexuality as a genetic trait, is so broadly a frequently seen in humans, it can't be considered an anomaly. Not to mention, it's a genetic trait that isn't dying out because the people passing it on, are the ones who are reproducing.

To my knowledge, there has been no credible geneticist who shares your point of view. I'm not even sure if non-credible ones share you view either. I know you are pretty well formed in your opinion, and probably not going to see the argument(s) against your theory, but it seems you might need to research your idea a bit more and bring back some established, researched, and quotable facts.

UAL

Sorry to continue this discussion, but I thought being homosexual wasn't necessarily a "trait" but affected by a hormonal difference during development. In other words, any of us straight people could (with the same DNA) have actually been gay if our / our mom's hormones were different. I could be wayyy of the mark though.

If this case does go before the 12 judge panel, could it then be appealed again to the SCOTUS??

[Edited 2012-02-09 09:56:10]

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 134): Sorry to continue this discussion, but I thought being homosexual wasn't necessarily a "trait" but affected by a hormonal difference during development.

I was under the impression that the actual cause of it, which psychological factors have been ruled out, is not quite clear. Some say genetics, some say hormones of the mother...

Quoting UAL747 (Reply 135): I was under the impression that the actual cause of it, which psychological factors have been ruled out, is not quite clear. Some say genetics, some say hormones of the mother...

Nothing definitive has been worked out, but there's a lot of attention paid to an answer that is both nature and nurture; i.e., genetic proclivity (nature) coupled with exposure to certain hormones in utero (nurture).

Note that when scientist point to "nurture" in their theories, they're not talking about having a domineering mother or an weak father or any other ridiculous stereotypes from the 1950s. They're using nurture to describe events in very early development, especially in utero.

Quoting SmittyOne (Reply 132): So, the religious person who is against 'Gay Marriage' percieves the California decision as an attack on his/her religious freedom,

And they would be unambiguously wrong. Your religious freedom is the freedom to practice your own religion. When that practice steps on the rights of others, then the establishment clause steps in.

The founders and early politicians left several official and unofficial documents expressly stating that the United States is not a Christian nation. Their writings were very explicit in their intent in adding that amendment to the Constitution. In those days, the atrocities of the various religious institutions in Europe were a very fresh memory and they were not about to have them repeated here.

Current religious conservatives have tried to argue that this is not true. They have discounted historical documents, come up with "creative interpretations" of them, and even altered school curricula (in TX, for example) to exclude documents that might hurt their cause. This is called "historical revisionism" and it is VERY DANGEROUS because when you have to lie to make your case, then you are more concerned about being right than doing what is right. And the logical conclusion is that their rightness trumps facts. After all, if God is doing the legislation, then any opposition must be ungodly, right? The ungodly must be punished. They must be repressed, thrown in jail, in concentration camps, or even gassed to death en masse. That is why there has NEVER in history been a democratic theocracy.

Your right to "free exercise" ends at my front door. You do not have the right to "freely exercise" your religion into law.

I'm not sure why the straight men on these boards are complaining. Afterall, there's more pussy for the rest of us!

Quoting imiakhtar (Reply 138): I'm not sure why the straight men on these boards are complaining. Afterall, there's more pussy for the rest of us!

Perhaps a bit on the crass side, but very true. I'm your best friend and wingman. Women flock to me and I will happily deflect them in your direction.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 137): And they would be unambiguously wrong. Your religious freedom is the freedom to practice your own religion. When that practice steps on the rights of others, then the establishment clause steps in.

Doc - just wanted to be clear that I agree with you 100% on this. Unfortunately there are MANY people in the US who don't see the logical disconnect behind religious justification for government action other than to protect people's right to worship how they please.

The most common argument I hear on this is to the effect that "the majority of people believe that X (Gay Marriage for example) is wrong, therefore it should be the law of the land." Even if that majority believe it is wrong primarily on religious or personal preference grounds. The problem there is that if we want to just go with the majority opinion on issues of personal freedom our Constitution and Bill of Rights are redundant.

I think it comes down to how fundamentally the preferences of the majority impact the individual freedoms of a minority, especially when exercise of those freedoms can't be shown to materially injure others.

For example, the majority probably believe that public nudity should be curtailed, if for no other reason than that they don't want to see other people naked. Homophobes or religious/social conservative individuals might make the same argument about married gay couples - ie they "don't want to see that" - either because they personally find it offensive or religiously sinful. In both cases one would be hard pressed to articulate how the presence of either public nudity or married gay couples might materially injure another person. After all, over the course of history humans have probably been naked a lot longer than they have been dressed. The difference is that depriving an individual of the freedom to dispense with clothing is orders of magnitude less of an imposition by the majority than depriving gay people of their ability to exercise one of the basic human rights that heterosexuals enjoy (entering into a marriage bond with another person).

Please understand I'm not trying to compare gay people to nudists, it just works well for the logic of my argument.

Quoting mbmbos (Reply 136): Nothing definitive has been worked out, but there's a lot of attention paid to an answer that is both nature and nurture; i.e., genetic proclivity (nature) coupled with exposure to certain hormones in utero (nurture).

I'm a big fan of science, but I wonder sometimes what the point of even answering this question might be, other than to show that people don't simply select their orientation. The fact is that most people are straight ('mostly straight' I should probably say) and some aren't. And both contribute positively to the "fabric of society". I'm straight and grew up programmed to be a homophobe, but being a member of a minority group myself (non-religious) I now see that we need to work toward an attitude where people can just be who they are as long as it isn't hurting anybody else. Whatever your thing happens to be.

Call me cynical, but I think that if we ever do conclusively discover the 'cause' of homosexuality, the same people who have consistently called being gay a choice would probably be the first ones to abandon that view and advocate pursuing ways to intervene genetically or hormonally to "cure" homosexuality in utero.

Quoting SmittyOne (Reply 140): The most common argument I hear on this is to the effect that "the majority of people believe that X (Gay Marriage for example) is wrong, therefore it should be the law of the land." Even if that majority believe it is wrong primarily on religious or personal preference grounds. The problem there is that if we want to just go with the majority opinion on issues of personal freedom our Constitution and Bill of Rights are redundant.

Indeed. At one time, the majority believed slavery was acceptable.

Quoting SmittyOne (Reply 140): if we ever do conclusively discover the 'cause' of homosexuality, the same people who have consistently called being gay a choice would probably be the first ones to abandon that view and advocate pursuing ways to intervene genetically or hormonally to "cure" homosexuality in utero.

      

Quoting 2H4 (Reply 141): Indeed. At one time, the majority believed slavery was acceptable.

Prohibition was also the result of a vote..

Quoting SmittyOne (Reply 140): ...but I wonder sometimes what the point of even answering this question...

If you are saying pro gay rights people rely too heavily on the didn't-have-a-choice argument, I tend to agree. Even if it were true that a person totally self-selects their sexual preference why shun them or persecute them? What is the point of this type of behavior besides being small minded and hateful?

On the other hand, this defense - that much of sexual orientation is more or less predetermined - flies in the face of Christianists who seek to condemn homosexuals based on the teachings and biblical interpretations of their respective churches.

So I think it's a worthy argument to make and I think it persuades many decent, respectful Christians to reconsider their policy views on this topic.

Quoting mbmbos (Reply 143): If you are saying pro gay rights people rely too heavily on the didn't-have-a-choice argument, I tend to agree. Even if it were true that a person totally self-selects their sexual preference why shun them or persecute them? What is the point of this type of behavior besides being small minded and hateful?

That was what I was driving at, but you said it a lot more clearly than I would  

Quoting mbmbos (Reply 143): On the other hand, this defense - that much of sexual orientation is more or less predetermined - flies in the face of Christianists who seek to condemn homosexuals based on the teachings and biblical interpretations of their respective churches. So I think it's a worthy argument to make and I think it persuades many decent, respectful Christians to reconsider their policy views on this topic.

Good point...