Same Sex Marriages

[bandaidwoman]

there, u said it, gay marriages wouldnt be your marriage, so they dont mean a thing to ya ...right??

And just for conversation's sake, whats telling u that homosexual values arent that much better than traditional heterosexual ones...?After all, maybe we learned form decades of straight failed marriages!

So true, a natural social experiment in denmark shows gays to have only a 17% divorce rate vs. the standard 46% divorce rate among heterosexuals. They could probably teach us something about commitment. http://health.yahoo.com/health/centers/relationships/920 (article from Psycology today)

 

[Rich46yo]

I think the only ones who would think Homosexuality is "strange" or "abnormal" are those who have never been around homosexuals. While it is a little different to see a man swishing around like a Sheila, or a woman doing an Aaaaanold on a harley, the unavoidable conclusions is that the vast majority of gay people are productive, well adjusted, citizens. Hell probably more so then straight people. Most dont even have discernable "other sex" traits. Hetros can act pretty fucking weird too.

I used to think "they" were weirdos too. Then I took a job where I had to be around them all the time, even work with them. I think they, you, me, none of us, got to choose the sexuality we were born with. It was all luck of the draw. And to deny anyone freedom to love is just plain mean spirited.

But Gays also have to understand that "anti-Gay-marriage" doesnt necessarily mean "anti-gay"................................Uncle Rich

 

[bandaidwoman]

A lot of what humans do is not natural, and not what God or Nature planned. Flying is not natural to man, neither is drinking alcohol, nor smoking cigarettes. Yet I don't hear calls for these things to be outlawed. So to say what is natural or not is a piss-poor argument.

Unless you are Amish or a Mennonite!


My beef with the whole thing, even if I had been a homosexual basher and hater, is still the legal constitutionality of the marriage amendment. Any true Libertarian and Republicans (who generally favor state's rights over federal control) should be against it.

Marriage, has been under the purview of the individual states since the founding fathers.

The word "marriage" doesn't even appear in the Constitution.

My lawyer has told me by defining the institution of marriage on a federal level for the first time, this would precipitate Supreme Court re-interpretation of hundreds of laws including many accepted marriage privacy rights (in particular, the right of a heterosexual married couple to use birth control. See Griswold v. Connecticut in 1965).

 

[crazy_enough]

But Gays also have to understand that "anti-Gay-marriage" doesnt necessarily mean "anti-gay"................................Uncle Rich

What does it mean then?? When someone tells me that they "accept" my lifestyle but that I should not exercise my fondamental right to love, share a life with and marry my same sex partner, I sure hear the "anti gay" song in the back of my mind!

 

[gococksDJS]

And your advanced degree in human sexuality, sociology, genetics and biology is from where?

your intellect is obviously quite limited because there is nothing advanced about my statement. I simply stated the undeniable natural laws of life, and you can not argue them no matter how much you agree or disagree. The basis of nature is reproduction, which simply can not be done by homosexual intercourse. How did the plants, trees, animals, you and I get here? By reproduction, which requires the fusion of two DIFFERENT haploid gametes into a diploid zygote. Every multicellular organism on the planet from the beginning of eukaryotic life was formed this way, and you can't disprove or argue it. Take any entry level biology course and you will learn this and how men like Charles Darwin and Gregor Mendel proved it through scientific research.

 

[crazy_enough]

your intellect is obviously quite limited because there is nothing advanced about my statement. I simply stated the undeniable natural laws of life, and you can not argue them no matter how much you agree or disagree. The basis of nature is reproduction, which simply can not be done by homosexual intercourse. How did the plants, trees, animals, you and I get here? By reproduction, which requires the fusion of two DIFFERENT haploid gametes into a diploid zygote. Every multicellular organism on the planet from the beginning of eukaryotic life was formed this way, and you can't disprove or argue it. Take any entry level biology course and you will learn this and how men like Charles Darwin and Gregor Mendel proved it through scientific research.

True, yet have you considered those who can not "reproduce" naturally? Those wonderfuly straight, "legit" and "normal" beings who for some health reason cannot have children in a natural manner! Are they not "natural" anymore, and should their rights be limited the same way their physical ability to procreate is?
Thru science, my wife and I can now have enough babies to populate for centuries!

 

[gococksDJS]

In seagulls they note that homosexual behavior seems to increase with high population density so this may be a way of natural populati0n control ( so resources are not utilised past the potential for survivability of the population species) and thus.....homosexuality does not defy the realm of social darwinism.

"Homosexuality" in animals is not homosexuality and not genetic because if it was, how did this "homosexual" gene get passed down? Did the animal decide to be bisexual and reproduce? The resoning behind "animal sexuality" is simple. Animals do not reason, but they do respond to stimuli, which is a genetic trait. When you are 3 months old and touch the stove, you pull your hand away not because you know what is happening, but because of inherited stimuli from your parents that governs your central nervous system from day 1. Genetic stimuli also exist in animals, like baboons or birds who seem to be homosexual, but are actually responding to genetic stimuli. They do not understand or have the capability to comprehend the idea of homosexuality, and are acting purely on the basis of a certain stimulus.

 

[Minotaur]

your intellect is obviously quite limited because there is nothing advanced about my statement. I simply stated the undeniable natural laws of life, and you can not argue them no matter how much you agree or disagree. The basis of nature is reproduction, which simply can not be done by homosexual intercourse. How did the plants, trees, animals, you and I get here? By reproduction, which requires the fusion of two DIFFERENT haploid gametes into a diploid zygote. Every multicellular organism on the planet from the beginning of eukaryotic life was formed this way, and you can't disprove or argue it. Take any entry level biology course and you will learn this and how men like Charles Darwin and Gregor Mendel proved it through scientific research.

My intellect is advanced enough, and it is open minded enough to know that there are many, many permutations on the theme of life. You would do well also to open your mind and not make pontifications on things which you evidently know little about.

 

[Minotaur]

"Homosexuality" in animals is not homosexuality and not genetic because if it was, how did this "homosexual" gene get passed down?

There is a difference between genetic and hereditary. What is genetic is not necessarily hereditary. Your statement shows a fundamental lack of understanding. Therefore, you have no right to speak on the matter and expect to be taken seriously.

Now, put this tall pointed hat on and go stand in the corner.

 

[gococksDJS]

True, yet have you considered those who can not "reproduce" naturally? Those wonderfuly straight, "legit" and "normal" beings who for some health reason cannot have children in a natural manner! Are they not "natural" anymore, and should their rights be limited the same way their physical ability to procreate is?
Thru science, my wife and I can now have enough babies to populate for centuries!

I am not referring to a certain person in any way. I am referring purely to life itself, whether it be man, animal, etc. Infertile people aren't "not natural" but they can not pass on their genetic material by natural means, so while they can still possibly reproduce, they are acted upon by an outside force, and one of the 5 requirements for Social Darwinism is the ability for natural reproduction to occur successfully. The basis is that test tube reproduction does not follow the natural course of life, it is a synthetic process. Im not saying it is bad, if I was infertile I would definitely do whatever it took to have children, im just stating the laws of natural life.

 

[gococksDJS]

There is a difference between genetic and hereditary. What is genetic is not necessarily hereditary. Your statement shows a fundamental lack of understanding. Therefore, you have no right to speak on the matter and expect to be taken seriously.

Now, put this tall pointed hat on and go stand in the corner.

I am not trying to be a smartass here, but you seriously need to check the facts before you try to bash someone, because you are very wrong. Look at the definition of heredity taken from www.dictionary.com and please read number two and you can go ahead and apologize.



he·red·i·tar·y ([font=verdana, sans-serif] P [/font]) Pronunciation Key (h

-r

d

-t

r

)
adj.

1. Law.
   1. <LI type=a>Descending from an ancestor to a legal heir; passing down by inheritance.
   2. Having title or possession through inheritance.
2. Transmitted or capable of being transmitted genetically from parent to offspring
3. 1. <LI type=a>Appearing in or characteristic of successive generations.
   2. Derived from or fostered by one's ancestors: a hereditary prejudice.
4. Ancestral; traditional: their hereditary home. See Synonyms at innate.
5. Of or relating to heredity or inheritance.

now, how about them apples?

 

[kbm8795]

I am not referring to a certain person in any way. I am referring purely to life itself, whether it be man, animal, etc. Infertile people aren't "not natural" but they can not pass on their genetic material by natural means, so while they can still possibly reproduce, they are acted upon by an outside force, and one of the 5 requirements for Social Darwinism is the ability for natural reproduction to occur successfully. The basis is that test tube reproduction does not follow the natural course of life, it is a synthetic process. Im not saying it is bad, if I was infertile I would definitely do whatever it took to have children, im just stating the laws of natural life.

This is all a rather irrelevant argument in regards to civil marriage laws anyway. Reproductive capacity is neither a requirement or the sole foundational pillar that states base the creation of marriage statutes on. So it really makes no sense to use this as an argument against recognition of those relationships, when many states have for years clearly allowed marriages between infertile spouses. Moreover, some, (like Illinois) have specifically passed statutes over the years that allows marriage between first cousins as long as one CANNOT have children and is over the age of 50. So the precedent has long been established in civil marriage law that reproductive capacity in and of itself is not the basis for access and participation in the institution of marriage. There is no reproductive litmus test for marriage in any state.

 

[gococksDJS]

There is a difference between genetic and hereditary. What is genetic is not necessarily hereditary. Your statement shows a fundamental lack of understanding. Therefore, you have no right to speak on the matter and expect to be taken seriously.

Now, put this tall pointed hat on and go stand in the corner.

This is to good for just one post disproving you. Lets look at the definition of heredity taken from the same source.

he·red·i·ty ([font=verdana, sans-serif] P [/font]) Pronunciation Key (h

-r

d

-t

)
n. pl. he·red·i·ties

1. The genetic transmission of characteristics from parent to offspring.
2. The sum of characteristics and associated potentialities transmitted genetically to an individual organism.

In case you are not comprehending this, YOUR GENETICS ARE HEREDITARY. You do not have any genetic material in your body that your parents did not posess, they may have not expressed it, but they posessed it. The way you were born was you INHERITED GENETIC MATERIAL, otherwise known as DNA, from your mother and father, so yes what is genetic is hereditary.

 

[gococksDJS]

This is all a rather irrelevant argument in regards to civil marriage laws anyway. Reproductive capacity is neither a requirement or the sole foundational pillar that states base the creation of marriage statutes on. So it really makes no sense to use this as an argument against recognition of those relationships, when many states have for years clearly allowed marriages between infertile spouses. Moreover, some, (like Illinois) have specifically passed statutes over the years that allows marriage between first cousins as long as one CANNOT have children and is over the age of 50. So the precedent has long been established in civil marriage law that reproductive capacity in and of itself is not the basis for access and participation in the institution of marriage. There is no reproductive litmus test for marriage in any state.

I have never once addressed the laws of marriage. This whole argument is based on whether or not homosexuality is "natural".

 

[Minotaur]

now, how about them apples?

Yeah, gee, how 'bout them apples...

ge·net·ic ( P ) Pronunciation Key (j-ntk) also ge·net·i·cal (--kl)
adj.

Of or relating to genetics or genes.
Affecting or determined by genes: genetic diseases.

Nothing about heredity. Read my previous post again... A genetic condition is not necessarily hereditary.

Back to Bio 101 for you!

 

[Minotaur]

You do not have any genetic material in your body that your parents did not posess, they may have not expressed it, but they posessed it. The way you were born was you INHERITED GENETIC MATERIAL, otherwise known as DNA, from your mother and father, so yes what is genetic is hereditary.

Wrong! Ever hear of mutations and evolution?

 

[gococksDJS]

Yeah, gee, how 'bout them apples...

ge·net·ic ( P ) Pronunciation Key (j-ntk) also ge·net·i·cal (--kl)
adj.

Of or relating to genetics or genes.
Affecting or determined by genes: genetic diseases.

Nothing about heredity. Read my previous post again... A genetic condition is not necessarily hereditary.

Back to Bio 101 for you!

dumbass, how did you get those genetics? did you eat them on your cereal this morning? Did you ask for a side of genetics with your hamburger? No, you inherited them from your parents, and what does heredity mean? The genetic transmission of characteristics from parent to offspring. I can't state this enough for you can I? Anything genetic is inherited, so it is hereditary. If that is you in your avatar, I have an example. Male Pattern Baldness is genetic, and is inherited from your mother, so the fundamentals of hereditary show how you got that gene.

 

[gococksDJS]

Wrong! Ever hear of mutations and evolution?

Mutations occur on a genetic level, like downs syndrome which happen to your DNA which are inherited from your parents, so even if you posess a mutated gene, you inherited the original gene from your parents. Here's an example. I give you an intact piece of gum, you tear it in half and chew it up, it's still gum, but it's in an altered state and you still got it from me.

 

[gococksDJS]

Wrong! Ever hear of mutations and evolution?

Now, let me school you on evolution, which is a gradual and slow process and here's how it occurs
1.) A genetic mutation occurs within a species kind of like camouflage, and if that species lives to reproduce, it passes the mutation on and it's offspring inherit it, and if this mutated species is more capable of surviving, than it continues to pass on its genes, which originated in mutation, while other species die out through natural selection.

 

[Minotaur]

How do you explain homosexuality? AND DO NOT SAY IT IS A CHOICE! There is unquestionably a genetic component to it. There is a multitude of studies pointing in that direction, yet none disproving it.

You still don't know what you are talking about. Grow up a little, learn a little about life, and come back to discuss in 10 or 12 years.

 

[gococksDJS]

How do you explain homosexuality? AND DO NOT SAY IT IS A CHOICE! There is unquestionably a genetic component to it. There is a multitude of studies pointing in that direction, yet none disproving it.

You still don't know what you are talking about. Grow up a little, learn a little about life, and come back to discuss in 10 or 12 years.

How do I not know what im talking about? I have disproven you time and time again. Regardless of your opinion, there is no scientific evidence linking homosexuality to mendelian genetics, and mendelian genetics are traits that are solely genetic, like eye color. There could be a possibility that it is partially genetically influenced but it can not be completely genetic. It is much like ones behavior, like you feeling the need to disprove me when I am obviously correct. Our behaviors, while partially linked to genetics, are greatly influenced by environment, which means there is no "homosexual" gene and you are not born homosexual. Doctors have studied the hypothalamus of homosexuals and heterosexuals and there was no difference between the two.

 

[gococksDJS]

You still don't know what you are talking about. Grow up a little, learn a little about life, and come back to discuss in 10 or 12 years.

You know, I have never once insulted your intelligence without providing you with substantial scientific evidence, and the fact that you can only come back at me with "grow up kid" shows which one of us needs to grow up. Admittance is something you need to learn, and wrong does not mean bad. You were wrong, and it takes a more mature person to say "I was wrong" than to say "Your dumb, grow up and come back in 10 or 12 years".

 

[maniclion]

and how do we know there aren't environmental/physiological influences later in a subjects life that elevated portions of their chemistry and steer them more in a homosexual direction as well as brain trauma that switches the brain into a different sexual mode. Not to mention abuse by a member of the opposite sex that makes one unattracted to the opposite sex. There are so many factors that just blaming it on choice is stupid and shows how deep your thinking well dips.

 

[maniclion]

and since we know there are hermaphrodites, would it be reasonable to assume that if a human can have male/female genitalia couldn't they also have a combination of male/female psychologically effected attractions?

 

[Minotaur]

You know, I have never once insulted your intelligence without providing you with substantial scientific evidence, and the fact that you can only come back at me with "grow up kid" shows which one of us needs to grow up. Admittance is something you need to learn, and wrong does not mean bad. You were wrong, and it takes a more mature person to say "I was wrong" than to say "Your dumb, grow up and come back in 10 or 12 years".

I'm not wrong. You are because you are being narrowminded. Embrace the truth of it.

 

[gococksDJS]

and since we know there are hermaphrodites, would it be reasonable to assume that if a human can have male/female genitalia couldn't they also have a combination of male/female psychologically effected attractions?

There has never been an example of a human hemaphrodite capable of self-reproduction. Hemaphroditic humans, and most hemaphroditic mammals, are born with both sex organs but do not have the capability to self reproduce because they develop only one set of gonads either in the testis or ovaries. Most plants are hemaphroditic, but self fertilization can cause genetic mutations so the femal and male parts of plants generally develop at separate times.

 

[Minotaur]

There could be a possibility that it is partially genetically influenced but it can not be completely genetic. ...

Thank you!

Our behaviors, while partially linked to genetics, are greatly influenced by environment, which means there is no "homosexual" gene

No one ever said there was A homosexual gene.

and you are not born homosexual. Doctors have studied the hypothalamus of homosexuals and heterosexuals and there was no difference between the two.

Now see, you were going good up to this point. You are clearly wrong. Some components of sexuality are fixed in utero, some arise later. There is no black and white. And there have been differences found in the hippocampus. http://www.google.com/search?as_q=h...s_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=&safe=images

 

[gococksDJS]

I'm not wrong. You are because you are being narrowminded. Embrace the truth of it.

There is no open mind or close mind to the points you are trying to argue with me. It has never been about openness or spirituality or freedomness or anything like that. I was arguing purely on a scientific basis, and you accused me of being uninformed and incorrect, which I proved to you that I was not. Science is not based on your ability to open the mind and soul, the laws of science are concrete and finite. I just did not appreceiate you accusing me of being dumb or ignorant, when this is what I study every day of my collegiate life. Our personal perceptions and feelings are a different story and I never challenged your views or opinions, I simply stated the facts.

 

[njc]

A lot of what humans do is not natural, and not what God or Nature planned. Flying is not natural to man, neither is drinking alcohol, nor smoking cigarettes. Yet I don't hear calls for these things to be outlawed. So to say what is natural or not is a piss-poor argument.

Moreover, gay marriage has nothing to do with the church. It's not about church recognition, it's about state and civil recognition. God has nothing to do with it.

thats exactely what I was gonna say. Instead of saying it shouldnt be allowed becuase its not natural, you should attempt to argue why something should be forbidden becuase its not natural. But that would be asssuming its unatural. What defines unnatural and how is that definition applied to the different aspects of life? Why does it matter?

 

[gococksDJS]

Minotaur, I am not wrong about being born homosexual. There is absolutely no scientific proof showing that sexuality is purely genetic. Yes it is a very controvercial topic but there is simply no proof to link a persons sexuality to their genetics. Read this passage, and you will see what i am saying.

"Evidence 3:
Brain Sizes ??? Result So Far: No
In 1991 and 1992, research was published which suggested that two parts of the brain were slightly different sizes in gay men as compared with straight men.

It seemed pretty conclusive at he time ??? gays ARE different. The gay lobby got excited. But this was dealt a serious blow in March 2000, when research was published that showed that taxi drivers also had different brain structures. In taxi drivers, the part that dealt with navigation ??? the hippocampus ??? was larger than in non-taxi drivers. Does that mean that there is a taxi driving gene too? That some babies are pre-programmed to drive taxis?

The researchers concluded that if you use your brain differently from other people, it will grow differently. It has nothing to do with being born that way ??? it is down to freedom of choice."

This is taken from
http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:q_ZzpKPjL0YJ:www.whyprophets.com/prophets/gay_gene.htm+what+is+hippocampus+homosexuality&hl=en&lr=lang_en

which clearly shows that there is no tie to genetics and homosexuality.