Same Sex Marriages

[maniclion]

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.

So your whole argument in this thread is it's wrong because it goes against natures laws of reproduction? Couldn't this be a species survival technique to keep from over populating?
I've probably already posted this 3 or 4 times that in my mind it makes pure logical sense and I fully back homosexual relationships because of the population explosion we are facing, I'd rather die knowing that our future offspring will see 2 men holding hands than 2 men fighting over a grain of rice while their pregnant wives licks dirt for nourishment and fights for her 2' by 2' spot on the crowded planet.

 

[gococksDJS]

So your whole argument in this thread is it's wrong because it goes against natures laws of reproduction? Couldn't this be a species survival technique to keep from over populating?
I've probably already posted this 3 or 4 times that in my mind it makes pure logical sense and I fully back homosexual relationships because of the population explosion we are facing, I'd rather die knowing that our future offspring will see 2 men holding hands than 2 men fighting over a grain of rice while their pregnant wives licks dirt for nourishment and fights for her 2' by 2' spot on the crowded planet.

Fucking Christ, I am not preaching morality here. I have not once given my opinion on sexuality or told others they are wrong for being homosexuals. I was simply stating the act of homosexuality is not natural and you can not reproduce by homosexual means. That is all im saying. I am only expressing the laws of science, and could care less about what other people think about homosexuality. Regardless of how you or I see the act of homosexuality, none of us can deny that it is impossible to reproduce by homosexual means, and that is all I have been saying.

 

[Minotaur]

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.

You're arguing as if the questions about sexuality have been resolved and answered without a doubt. They haven't. There are too many open questions, and you talk as if you know all the answers. Your methodology is flawed; that's where you are being narrowminded. Most scientific discoveries have been made serendipitously and because the scientist kept an open mind and did not form preconceived conclusions.

I AM homosexual, and I did not choose it. I do not have control over being aroused by another man. I do not have control over not being aroused by women. I do not have a problem with who I am, as you probably don't have a problem with who you are.

It pisses me off no end when people who are not gay say what is natural for me or what is not. It's as bad as me telling you that what you feel sexually when I can't know. Walk in my shoes and tell me what it is to be gay.

You DO have much to learn young Padawan.

 

[maniclion]

Fucking Christ, I am not preaching morality here. I have not once given my opinion on sexuality or told others they are wrong for being homosexuals. I was simply stating the act of homosexuality is not natural and you can not reproduce by homosexual means. That is all im saying. I am only expressing the laws of science, and could care less about what other people think about homosexuality. Regardless of how you or I see the act of homosexuality, none of us can deny that it is impossible to reproduce by homosexual means, and that is all I have been saying.

Are humans not a naturally occuring species? So if we are naturally occuring then everything we do or make is natural. Birds build nests, bees make honey neither would just occur without their assistance we call these things natural. As bandaidwoman pointed out with the gay seagulls, animals show homosexual tendencies. My 3 male dogs are always trying to get it on with one another they probably don't have homosexual genetics, but something in their chemistry tells them there's nothing wrong. Why do we masturbate? You can't get any one pregnant from the act itself yet men and women do it, monkeys do it, many other animals have been known to hump inanimate objects. How do we know that maturbation, homosexuality, bisexuality are not a genetic instincts passed down from years of evoltion with different levels of intensity?

 

[gococksDJS]

You're arguing as if the questions about sexuality have been resolved and answered without a doubt. They haven't. There are too many open questions, and you talk as if you know all the answers. Your methodology is flawed; that's where you are being narrowminded. Most scientific discoveries have been made serendipitously and because the scientist kept an open mind and did not form preconceived conclusions.

I AM homosexual, and I did not choose it. I do not have control over being aroused by another man. I do not have control over not being aroused by women. I do not have a problem with who I am, as you probably don't have a problem with who you are.

It pisses me off no end when people who are not gay say what is natural for me or what is not. It's as bad as me telling you that what you feel sexually when I can't know. Walk in my shoes and tell me what it is to be gay.

You DO have much to learn young Padawan.

I am not talking about emotion or feeling. All you are doing is going off what you feel, even when undeniable proof is given to you. Now I have not attacked anyone for being homosexual or otherwise, and I have never said I hate gays. All I am doing is waiting for evidence, and until you can prove it to me, you can not say that sexuality is genetic. There is not a sexuality gene on the human genome, and there may be theories that somewhere in the brain there is something different between homosexuals and heterosexuals, but we have mapped the human genome, and you can not take a segment of DNA and tell whether or not someone is homosexual and you can not pair two haploid chromosomes to make a homosexual person. I am in no way expressing my personal views on homosexuality or stating anything I feel. Once again, I am only stating what science has proven. You act like I am gay bashing or discriminating, but all im doing is stating facts. The things I am saying to you are the same things I would say to anyone gay or straight.

 

[bandaidwoman]

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.

Yes but there is enough evidence to show it has a biological basis nevertheless.

Although some homosexuality may be a choice most are not. Most physicians ( who are privey to such personal histories ) will tell you most homosexuals knew they were homosexual at a very young age, many prepubescently.

With that said, is there a genetic predispostion or some other physical factor that influences homosexuality?

To isolate a gene for homosexuality is probably as fallacious as isolating a gene for intelligence, there probably is not one singular gene that affects such complex biological/social behavior.

However, nature has provided us with a wonderful natural experiment called congenital adrenal hyperplasia where these women (depending on the study, have almost 60% homosexuality rate.) These women produce high testosterone while in the womb due to a enzyme defect in their adrenal glands and sometimes long after birth if not detected in time. Usually it is easily corrected with medicines..




http://www.boskydell.com/political/outlooks.htm
http://health.ftmaustralia.org/library/96/1200.pdf

general lecture in reproductive medicine on
CAH http://home.epix.net/~tcannon1/Physioweek9.htm

Thus, it shows that the hormonal environment of the fetus may affect the sexual identity of a person. Thus, homosexuality may be an acquired biological phenomenom rather then a genetic phenomenom. We don't have such a natural experiment in men with the exception of something called complete androgen insensitivity syndrome where these are genetic males born with completely perfect external female genitalia and breast and develop into attractive females who can't reproduce of course. Many go on to marry men. (technically they are gay?...genetic males having sexuall relationships with males.) However, it really isn't fair because their male hormones don't work at all (because they lack all testosterone receptors) and only their estrogen receptors get activated.

Here is one study that suggests a neurological basis for homosexuality
http://www.betterhumans.com/News/news.aspx?articleID=2003-10-07-5

Besides, we are getting away from purely genetics as the only determinant of physical/psycological traits. there is more and more evidence that epigenetic material (the proteins, sugars etc. that encase and surround DNA) may be just as important in determing traits and these are easily susceptible to environmental damages etc.

 

[gococksDJS]

Are humans not a naturally occuring species? So if we are naturally occuring then everything we do or make is natural. Birds build nests, bees make honey neither would just occur without their assistance we call these things natural. As bandaidwoman pointed out with the gay seagulls, animals show homosexual tendencies. My 3 male dogs are always trying to get it on with one another they probably don't have homosexual genetics, but something in their chemistry tells them there's nothing wrong. Why do we masturbate? You can't get any one pregnant from the act itself yet men and women do it, monkeys do it, many other animals have been known to hump inanimate objects. How do we know that maturbation, homosexuality, bisexuality are not a genetic instincts passed down from years of evoltion with different levels of intensity?

Is an atomic bomb a natural thing? Humans made it, but it is not natural. The process of nuclear fission is natural, but not the bomb. Your point makes no sense. Computers are not natural, yet we make them. Humans occur naturally because of heterosexual reproduction. Would the human race exist 200 years from now if we all decided to reproduce purely by homosexual means? No because there is no way we could evolve to reproduce in this manner before our whole species died off. Animals are not homosexual, we might see their acts of stimulus as homosexual because of our own views on homosexuality, but they do not know the concept of homosexuality. Animals reproduce due to instinct, which is why most animals have "mating seasons" because of a biological clock that genetically drives them to reproduce. Animals that may seem homosexual or seem to jack off are only responding to simple stimuli, and do not have the mental connection of visualizing another object of lust while masturbating like humans can.

 

[gococksDJS]

Yes but there is enough evidence to show it has a biological basis nevertheless.

Although some homosexuality may be a choice most are not. Most physicians ( who are privey to such personal histories ) will tell you most homosexuals knew they were homosexual at a very young age, many prepubescently.

With that said, is there a genetic predispostion or some other physical factor that influences homosexuality?

To isolate a gene for homosexuality is probably as fallacious as isolating a gene for intelligence, there probably is not one singular gene that affects such complex biological/social behavior.

However, nature has provided us with a wonderful natural experiment called congenital adrenal hyperplasia where these women (depending on the study, have almost 60% homosexuality rate.) These women produce high testosterone while in the womb due to a enzyme defect in their adrenal glands and sometimes long after birth if not detected in time. Usually it is easily corrected with medicines..




http://www.boskydell.com/political/outlooks.htm
http://health.ftmaustralia.org/library/96/1200.pdf

general lecture in reproductive medicine on
CAH http://home.epix.net/~tcannon1/Physioweek9.htm

Thus, it shows that the hormonal environment of the fetus may affect the sexual identity of a person. Thus, homosexuality may be an acquired biological phenomenom rather then a genetic phenomenom. We don't have such a natural experiment in men with the exception of something called complete androgen insensitivity syndrome where these are genetic males born with completely perfect external female genitalia and breast and develop into attractive females who can't reproduce of course. Many go on to marry men. (technically they are gay?...genetic males having sexuall relationships with males.) However, it really isn't fair because their male hormones don't work at all (because they lack all testosterone receptors) and only their estrogen receptors get activated.

Here is one study that suggests a neurological basis for homosexuality
http://www.betterhumans.com/News/news.aspx?articleID=2003-10-07-5

Once again, these are theories that are yet to be proven. It says in your post that homosexuality may be a biological phenomenon or genetic phenomenon, but until we can prove that some people are genetically predisposed to be homosexual, you can not say it is genetic.

 

[crazy_enough]

Im liking the fact that for once, someone is brigning up a reason other than freaking religion into this discussion...

I dont find it has an impact as an argument against gay mariages, as Ana nicole Smith and her big fake ass boobs marrying a 90 yr old dude was far form natural (boobs are fake, and dude sure as hell couldnt reproduce! )and was still allowed to take place.

 

[crazy_enough]

Once again, these are theories that are yet to be proven. It says in your post that homosexuality may be a biological phenomenon or genetic phenomenon, but until we can prove that some people are genetically predisposed to be homosexual, you can not say it is genetic.

But so is the stuff that u quote dude! The theories u are posting contradict the ones we post, yet we all think were right! All I can tell u, is that noone forced me to be gay, and by the time I was old enough to recognize and aknowledge my sexuality (around 8yrs old), I knew that women gave me "a tingly feeling down there" but men didnt!

 

[bandaidwoman]

Once again, these are theories that are yet to be proven. It says in your post that homosexuality may be a biological phenomenon or genetic phenomenon, but until we can prove that some people are genetically predisposed to be homosexual, you can not say it is genetic.

I did not say it was genetic, in fact I think it is due to epigenetic inheritance...see below But there is good enough scientific data to suggest it is biologically based (wether its due to intrauterine hormonal influences or development of neurolgical changes (seizures are not genetic but are real physical biological problems) Look at the end post about epigenetic processes affecting much of the physical traits we see. Here is a great journal article about epigenetic processes

http://www.evolutionarygenetics.org/Epigenetics.pdf#search='epigenetic%20traits'

Here is another showing how even cloned, identically genetic animal still have different phenotypes or express different physical traits due to epigenetic variation

http://www.biolreprod.org/cgi/content/full/69/2/430
I actually was lucky enough to work with some of these folks when I was at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory


here is a wikpedia defination of epigenetic inheritance since it is still not common knowledge except in the research communiy

Epigenetic inheritance is the transmission of information from a cell or multicellular organism to its descendants without that information being encoded in the nucleotide sequence of the gene. The study of epigenetic inheritance is known as epigenetics.

Epigenetic inheritance occurs in the development of multicellular organisms: dividing fibroblasts for instance give rise to new fibroblasts even though their genome is identical to that of all other cells. Epigenetic transmission of traits also occurs from one generation to the next in some organisms, though it is comparatively rare. It was first observed in maize.

I believe alot of phenomenom from bipolar disease to homosexuality is due to such epigenetic occurrances. Those who argue that twin studies disprove homosexuality as a biological disease (concordance is 33% rather than 100%) as expected with identical genetic material the two share are completely clueless about epigenetic inheritance. Many biological diseases (bipolar disease for instance that responds well to lithium etc. has only a 70% concordance rate in identical twins, many believe epigenetic factors account for this) Look at cloned pigs that can express different physical traits. Don't tell me they " chose" their differences just because its not genetic. (One of the cloned pigs had 13 teats vs the usual 12 the others had, different hair growth patterns etc.)....very very interesting


The proof of burden is on those who don't think homosexuality has any biological basis.. We cannot ignore the emperic data that suggest otherwise. To ignore such is to be a bad scientist.

Like I said, trying to come up with a simple inheritance model for homosexuality is as stupid as coming up with a simple inheritance model for alcoholism, schizophrenia, intelligence, attention deficit disorder, dyslexia and all other complex social phenomenom that have some biological basis.

 

[maniclion]

But what triggers the hormonal release and regulates them, isn't it the coding within the genetic material?

 

[bandaidwoman]

But what triggers the hormonal release and regulates them, isn't it the coding within the genetic material?

In congenital adrenal hyperplasia the overproduction of male hormones and hundreds of other adrenal hormones is genetically determined. But we believe that the developing brain of the female fetus bathed in the extra male hormone (pumped out by her adrenal glands during fetal development) during critical fetal brain formation is what causes her brain to develop differently to the point where she is more prone (60% more so ) to being attracted to women. The genetic defect "indirectly" determined her sexual orientation due to these hormonal factors. From a scientific standpoint we can't directly say the genetic defect for CAH is the cause of her sexuality. It may be, but it would be erroneous to do so.

 

[bio-chem]

But so is the stuff that u quote dude! The theories u are posting contradict the ones we post, yet we all think were right! All I can tell u, is that noone forced me to be gay, and by the time I was old enough to recognize and aknowledge my sexuality (around 8yrs old), I knew that women gave me "a tingly feeling down there" but men didnt!

Doesnt 8 years old seem a little young? was there something in your childhood that maybe sped the process up? i still thought girls had kooties at that age. dont bite my head off over this, but that seems a little advanced in age for sexual awareness to the extent of getting aroused. which usually means there was external forces that led to an early entrance into that part of childhood development. im speaking soley on the psychological development here not physical.

 

[bandaidwoman]

Haven't you played 'doctor" when you were young?

 

[bio-chem]

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).

the arguement that marriage isnt in the constitution doesnt mean anything. murder is not found in the constitution either, but our government has laws pertaining to it. have you read and do you understand the consitution? it sets up a form of government by which the people choose to be governed by. if the people choose to incorporate their views on morality into their government the constituion does not prohibit them from doing so. the 10th amendment states "the powers not delegated to the united states by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." its the individual states passing amendments currently on this issue, and if a federal amendment becomes ratified to the constitution then it will be the people by the ratification process who will choose to incorporate that into the powers given to gevernment. this is not even including the supreme courts authority in interpreting the constitution. and this is not the first time in history that the federal government of the united states has stepped in and regulated marriage im sorry to point out.

 

[bio-chem]

'doctor' is a little different. thats just kids being curious about there bodies, its a different stage in the psyco-sexual development of an idividual than what i was asking crazy about.

 

[kbm8795]

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

And this thread is about same-sex marriage.

 

[kbm8795]

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

And this thread is about same-sex marriage.

 

[bandaidwoman]

the arguement that marriage isnt in the constitution doesnt mean anything. murder is not found in the constitution either, but our government has laws pertaining to it. have you read and do you understand the consitution? it sets up a form of government by which the people choose to be governed by. if the people choose to incorporate their views on morality into their government the constituion does not prohibit them from doing so. the 10th amendment states "the powers not delegated to the united states by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." its the individual states passing amendments currently on this issue, and if a federal amendment becomes ratified to the constitution then it will be the people by the ratification process who will choose to incorporate that into the powers given to gevernment. this is not even including the supreme courts authority in interpreting the constitution. and this is not the first time in history that the federal government of the united states has stepped in and regulated marriage im sorry to point out.

Yes i have read it (Constitution) while studying to pass citizenship exam and I know enough about it to know it violates the first amendment (see my previous posts) and my comments were based on my paraphrasing a lawyer who should know more about federal vs. state laws then I do.,

 

[kbm8795]

the arguement that marriage isnt in the constitution doesnt mean anything. murder is not found in the constitution either, but our government has laws pertaining to it. have you read and do you understand the consitution? it sets up a form of government by which the people choose to be governed by. if the people choose to incorporate their views on morality into their government the constituion does not prohibit them from doing so. the 10th amendment states "the powers not delegated to the united states by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." its the individual states passing amendments currently on this issue, and if a federal amendment becomes ratified to the constitution then it will be the people by the ratification process who will choose to incorporate that into the powers given to gevernment. this is not even including the supreme courts authority in interpreting the constitution. and this is not the first time in history that the federal government of the united states has stepped in and regulated marriage im sorry to point out.

This is a rather simplistic viewpoint of the Constitution, which is a document that guarantees the rights of ALL citizens, regardless of the opinions of those who need someone to persecute. Amending the Constitution to regulate, and in fact, restrict the fundamental freedom to love is both ridiculous and unenforceable and is likely to be used in ways that conservatives pretend weren't the intention. Already in several states where constitutional amendments were passed, the special "morality" involves restricting enforcement of domestic violence provisions between unmarried persons and attempts to overturn health care benefits to domestic partners, particularly those who now cannot be married.
Whenever a conservative uses a broad term like "morality" to restrict civil rights to American citizens, everyone should start to take serious notice.

I think bio-chem explains perfectly the conservative attitude concerning both the Constitution and Second Amendment rights, which they adamantly defend when it comes to their own fundamental right to defend their families. The idea that the "people" could . . .and should. . .vote to destroy the marriages of thousands of same-sex couples who are now legally wed, and expect them to not defend their families is an indication of how easily they will embrace tyranny if it involves imposing their fluid sense of "morals" on other Americans.

But this can also set a different precedent. After all, the pendulum always swings back, and this kind of constitutional amendment will lead to others that can suddenly infringe on somebody else. A few of those and our Constitution will be a meaningless piece of paper with empty promises that have been eroded and tossed aside. Of course, conservatives will take no responsibility for their role in that demise. After all, just as in everything else...the concept of personal responsibility always applies to someone else.

 

[bio-chem]

that maybe the interpretation of that one lawyer, but like i said the government of the u.s. has passed laws regulating marriage in the past despite arguements of 1st amenment rights. these laws were also later upheld in the u.s. supreme court.

 

[bio-chem]

im uncertain kbm8795 about your arguement about the 2nd amendment rights. where does "a well regulated militia, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" enter into this discussion. im not understanding your connection.

 

[bandaidwoman]

that maybe the interpretation of that one lawyer, but like i said the government of the u.s. has passed laws regulating marriage in the past despite arguements of 1st amenment rights. these laws were also later upheld in the u.s. supreme court.

There is allowance in the constitution for seperation of state and federal rights and power . This provides a clear seperation and provides a balance of power. This is what I thought was most unique about the US government. We are ending that seperation by enacting a constitutional amendment..... we aren't talking about changing some civil laws to reflect the beliefs of a majority of state voting constituents. We are talking about allowing the Federal government to impose its religious beliefs on all fifty states despite what the majority opinion is in that state. (California and Massachussets should have every right to allow gay marriage as Georgia has every right to stop gay marriage since marriage and other civil matters have rightfully been left up to the state citizens.)

Besides, my main beef is not how it legally affects state vs. federal rights since that involves alot of legal wrangling. Once again, it defys the seperation of church and state that made me want to become a citizen of this country, because such an amendment would be founded upon a religious and biblical doctrine; thus, at least a portion of our Constitution would no longer reflect secular values and public desires but religious values and divine commands. And let's not mention this violates our first amendment as well.

 

[crazy_enough]

Doesnt 8 years old seem a little young? was there something in your childhood that maybe sped the process up? i still thought girls had kooties at that age. dont bite my head off over this, but that seems a little advanced in age for sexual awareness to the extent of getting aroused. which usually means there was external forces that led to an early entrance into that part of childhood development. im speaking soley on the psychological development here not physical.

Im sorry to disappoint you, but I have "unfortunately" not been a victim of any visciousness(is that a word??lol), traumatic or unusual event as a child!
Im however wondering what could have possibly happened to slow down ur development in those aspects of your life, as by the time I hit 8 yrs old, I had known for quite a few years that boys and girls didnt "look" the same under their clothes and that as adults, they wouldnt only use those "features" as simple means of expelling urine! U may be older than I am, Ure family may have had a more "closed minded, sex is yukky and wrong" approach to sex ed., both which could explain the difference in education and information available at that age...I knew that I could "manipulate" my body for "fun" by the age of 6!

I didnt say that I was masturbating to my mother's Sears catalogues at 8 yrs old, but I knew, that while the other little girls at camp liked the male guides, I liked the female lifeguards!

 

[bandaidwoman]

Im sorry to disappoint you, but I have "unfortunately" not been a victim of any visciousness(is that a word??lol), traumatic or unusual event as a child!
Im however wondering what could have possibly happened to slow down ur development in those aspects of your life, as by the time I hit 8 yrs old, I had known for quite a few years that boys and girls didnt "look" the same under their clothes and that as adults, they wouldnt only use those "features" as simple means of expelling urine! U may be older than I am, Ure family may have had a more "closed minded, sex is yukky and wrong" approach to sex ed., both which could explain the difference in education and information available at that age...I knew that I could "manipulate" my body for "fun" by the age of 6!

I didnt say that I was masturbating to my mother's Sears catalogues at 8 yrs old, but I knew, that while the other little girls at camp liked the male guides, I liked the female lifeguards!

yes, i remember when i did an elective in pediatrics and parents were bringing in their young children who were masturbating...oh the horror. The pediatricians reassured them and told them this was not a sexual perversion. Both the clitoris and penis have high density of peripheral sensory cells and thus are erogenous zones (these include the nipples, small of the back, palmar wrist region etc.) and have always been sensitive and provide pleasure....they may not climax, but kids who were exploring their bodies sometimes found the magic button!

 

[bio-chem]

crazy, like ive previously pointed out im not talking about children understanding the differences between the sexes. of course that happens at an early age, no i was not masturbating at 8 nor was i capable. you seem to contradict yourself at 6 your manipulating your body for fun, but not masturbating at 8. which is it? and im not immediatly jumping to the conclusion that something bad happened to you at an early age i was asking if that might be the case. why would you think that would disapoint me if that were the case? never have i said or implied anything that should lead someone to believe that about me. and your comments on how i was raised. assinine. way to jump on the bandwagon and immediatly assume a gross generalization. good job.

 

[bio-chem]

There is allowance in the constitution for seperation of state and federal rights and power . This provides a clear seperation and provides a balance of power. This is what I thought was most unique about the US government. We are ending that seperation by enacting a constitutional amendment..... we aren't talking about changing some civil laws to reflect the beliefs of a majority of state voting constituents. We are talking about allowing the Federal government to impose its religious beliefs on all fifty states despite what the majority opinion is in that state. (California and Massachussets should have every right to allow gay marriage as Georgia has every right to stop gay marriage since marriage and other civil matters have rightfully been left up to the state citizens.)

Besides, my main beef is not how it legally affects state vs. federal rights since that involves alot of legal wrangling. Once again, it defys the seperation of church and state that made me want to become a citizen of this country, because such an amendment would be founded upon a religious and biblical doctrine; thus, at least a portion of our Constitution would no longer reflect secular values and public desires but religious values and divine commands. And let's not mention this violates our first amendment as well.

your missing something here. states have always traditionally recognized marriages that occured in another state. if one state allows gay marriage then it would be forcing its laws on another state to also recognize this marriage. therefore the citizens in one state wish to protect themselves from another states statutes they pass an amendment protecting there sovereignty to regulate marriage as they see fit in their state. the federal government can step in because the supreme court has given the federal government the right to regulate commerce between the states. im not saying this last part is how it will happen im giving it as an example of how the "legal wrangling" happens due to the fact the constitution is a living constitution and depends on each succeeding generations loose or rigid interpretation of certain points in the constitution. right or wrong these states feel it is an attack on their ability to choose what they want in their state. basically someone else saying you have to believe what i believe in. the exact thing they are being accused of by others. quite the catch 22

 

[bio-chem]

the first amendment has been hidden behind by a lot of people for many different reasons. many laws in u.s. history have been passed regulating this very amendment, because it has been used by minority groups to press their own personal agenda on the majority. for instance all the problems about the word "God" in the pledge of allegience. does it interfere with an athiests rights not to believe in God, or does it take away from the majorities rights to profess there belief in him. while we have a sacred obligation to protect the minority, that minority must not rule the majority.

 

[crazy_enough]

crazy, like ive previously pointed out im not talking about children understanding the differences between the sexes. of course that happens at an early age, no i was not masturbating at 8 nor was i capable. you seem to contradict yourself at 6 your manipulating your body for fun, but not masturbating at 8. which is it? and im not immediatly jumping to the conclusion that something bad happened to you at an early age i was asking if that might be the case. why would you think that would disapoint me if that were the case? never have i said or implied anything that should lead someone to believe that about me. and your comments on how i was raised. assinine. way to jump on the bandwagon and immediatly assume a gross generalization. good job.

WOOOO, hold ur horses and re-read what I wrote! I said I did not masturbate to my moms Sears catalogues at the tender age of 8, but said that by the time I was 6, I had realized that "my private area" was sensitive to the touch and that I enjoyed it!

Now, secondly, had we been having this discussion "vocally", this misunderstanding would be inexistant! I said that PERHAPS, u did not have access to the same sex ed. information and education as I did, maybe because: a) u MAY be older than I and such info wasnt as widely available or talked about to previous generations or b) your (as many others) family MAY have had a different approach to such education than mine did. To this day, we still use "kiddy" analogy such as "down there" and "peepee" or "bad place" to designate genitals, and masturbation in children is still seen as the plague by some parents, so why is it so impossible that MAYBE U were brought up in that fashion? I may have used the wrong phrasing, but thats what I meant!

I also made use of sarcasm to an extent when I said I would "disapoint" you, once again, I admit, may not have been the best wording....I guess what I meant is that I wish I could have an explaination as "simple"(please take use of this word lighlty in this situation!) as abuse etc.. to provide you with a reason as to why I was so aware of my sexuality at such a young age, but i cannot! I did use these: " " when I said "unfortunately".

But see bio, sometimes the wording or phrasing that u utilise to demonstrate ur views on homosexuality arent always so kind or just...maybe not to you, but as far as Im concerned...We gotta keep our pants on and relax about things, u know think twice maybe sometimes before replying... coz the only one who "jumped on the bandwagon and assumed" in the case of my last post, was U! Still, I am very sorry if I offended u in any way shape or form as it was sincerely not my intent...but thats bound to happen in such discussions where not everybody agrees!