California takes a step backwards!

[Bent]

You remind me of Stumpy...you start off good. Then your religious righteous anger gets the better of you and you just come off sounding stupid. There has been no proof...ever that Homosexuality is a learned preference and a lot of pretty good studies showing just the opposite. If you are afraid of gays...thats OK. If you don't like them because it doesn't fit into your small minded little view of the world...thats OK too. Just don't make arguments you can't back up.

They have the CHOICE to act on it just as does the addict or the alcoholic.

 

[5-90]

That's what I get for answering while on the phone. See, if you don't bother to think your answer through, you see what happens?

So...yeah, what he said.

If everyone involved can consent and it's not hurting anyone else, fine. Go for it. If it's hurting someone else is where the problem comes in. So I guess (now referring to another poster) that if you honestly believe that schools are going to turn your kids into perverts and that the country will cease to exist inside 50 years if we "allow" gay folks to marry each other and live normal lives, then well, keep on votin'. By all means.

Let me toss this back to you - where would you see us setting the bar for "informed consent?" We all know there are flaws in the law - cf. Traci Lords. She was absolved of charges because she was "unable to give informed consent" (as she was a minor at the time. Granted, anyone who believed she was a minor obviously never saw any of her early films...) and the industry was absolved as well - it just took longer for them.

However, she knew precisely what she was doing. Part of the reason she was absolved was that the ID she had presented (to prove she was a "legal adult") was a United States passport - and the US didn't want to admit that they'd screwed up and enabled a minor to go into porn. Neat trick. (I believe she did her Penthouse shoot at 16 - was Pet of the Month, and certainly didn't look like she was only sixteen...)

She may not have been able to give legal informed consent, but it's pretty obvious that she knew precisely what she was doing - that sounds pretty "informed" to me.

And, given the disparity between the age of consent in various states in the Union, there is obviously a problem. Got any proposals for fixing it? I'd honestly love to hear them - what's the point in debating a problem if you can't propose a solution?

Granted, the problem here becomes "subjectivity versus objectivity" - how can you balance the development of the individual as an individual against the "average model" that the law tries to use? The two largely cannot be reconciled - that's why I had so much trouble in school (I got ahead of the system and stayed there, and they kept trying to wedge me back into the mould. But, I wouldn't go. So, my grades tanked - I've never liked repeating myself...)

 

[scottmcneal]

I left my Bump stop plates at your place didn't I?

Told you that awhile ago, i'll have to go out to the shop an find them.. Let me know.

 

[DrMoab]

Re: California takes a step back wards!

They have the CHOICE to act on it just as does the addict or the alcoholic.

I think its a little different then that.

It would be no different then telling a normal straight guy that even though he has feelings for a woman, he shouldn't act on them.

Like I said, Marriage is a sacred thing to me. To allow gays to marry to me would diminish that a little bit but I could care less if they want to call it a "domestic union" and live together, share benefits, see each other in the hospital...thats all fine. Just don't call it a marriage.

 

[in2fords]

Re: California takes a step back wards!

I think its a little different then that.

It would be no different then telling a normal straight guy that even though he has feelings for a woman, he shouldn't act on them.

Like I said, Marriage is a sacred thing to me. To allow gays to marry to me would diminish that a little bit but I could care less if they want to call it a "domestic union" and live together, share benefits, see each other in the hospital...thats all fine. Just don't call it a marriage.

So by letting gays get married it makes your marriage less then before? I dont see anybody not allowing people that live in trailer parks and wear wife beaters not get married, atleast the ones that arent related. The people who get married and beat the one they love, or get married for money or the ones that get married 10 times or more, to me those are the ones who make marriages not what it should be.
I dont care if their fighting swords or slapping slugs, as long as they are getting married out of love and not for other reasons, like so many straight couples then it sounds good to me.

What if the religious people, those that seem to have a problem with gay marriage, rename their marriage to

"holier then anyone else life together by the rights given to me by Jesus Christ himself in person"

Would seem to clear up the confusion. Religious people werent the ones to coin the term "marriage" why should you be offended by who uses it? go back to what you had before you started calling it marriage and leave the rest of us alone.

 

[in2fords]

Re: California takes a step back wards!

Just that those that engage in it have made a wrong choice

like you beleiving the bible?

 

[ocean_jet]

50% of marriages in this country fail.


Is there really any sanctity left, when viewed as a whole?

Sure, there are successes... but isn't a failure rate around 50% a bigger threat, a bigger blow to the sanctity and sacredness?

 

[Bent]

Re: California takes a step back wards!

Like I said, Marriage is a sacred thing to me.

Agreed.

 

[Trail-Axe]

You remind me of Stumpy...you start off good. Then your religious righteous anger gets the better of you and you just come off sounding stupid. There has been no proof...ever that Homosexuality is a learned preference and a lot of pretty good studies showing just the opposite. If you are afraid of gays...that's OK. If you don't like them because it doesn't fit into your small minded little view of the world...that's OK too. Just don't make arguments you can't back up.

I guess if I was less intelligent, I would let my emotions rule me, and back up my opinions with direct insults against those with whom I disagree. Instead I will attempt to bring you up to my level of understanding on this subject matter with some facts.

Dr. Charles Socarides, former professor of psychiatry at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York, also noted that "the question of a minute section of the brain-sub-microscopic almost-as...deciding sexual object choice is really preposterous... Certainly...a cluster of the brain cannot determine sexual object choice. We know that for a fact."33 (The supposed scientific studies you refer to).

In other words, what if homosexual behavior itself causes minute organic alterations in the body, which are only a posteriori assumed to be a contributing cause to homosexuality? Scientific studies have indicated that behavior itself might cause the size of the neurons to fluctuate, rather then the neurons causing specific homosexual or heterosexual behavior.

Dr. Kenneth Klivington, former assistant to the president of the Salk Institute where Dr. LeVay did his study linking homosexual activity to genetics, pointed to "a body of evidence that shows the brains neural networks reconfigure themselves in response to certain experiences."34

So the relationship between cause and effect-what affects what-is not clear. Therefore, the difference in homosexual brain structure-assuming further studies confirm Le Bay's "finding" -may be a result of certain behavior and /or environmental conditions!

One of the supposed studies you may be referring to was conducted by Dr. Dean Hamer, et al., at the National Cancer Institute (NCI). Dr. Hamer and his researchers at the NCI claim to have found that “male sexual orientation is genetically influenced.” Initially they discovered elevated rates of maternally, but not paternally related homosexuality in the families of 76 gays. This suggested potential maternal transmission of the homosexuality through the X chromosome. Thus, the team examined 22 regions or “loci” covering the X chromosome of 40 pairs of homosexual brothers who had volunteered to be studied through advertisements in homosexual publications.

The researchers found that 33 of the 40 pairs of brothers shared identical genetic markers in five loci of the q28 region of the X chromosome. This led them to the conclusion that a gene or genes in this region influences the expression of homosexuality in at least 64% of the brothers tested.44

But the conclusions are just as suspect as in the earlier research by Dr. LeVay. For example, a “substantial statistical nudging was required to get a ‘fit.’” 45

Further, scientific authorities in the area are not convinced any connection has been established. For example, Ruth Hubbard, a professor emeritus of biology at Harvard University and coauthor of Exploding the Gene Myth, commented: This study, like similar previous findings is flawed. It is based on simplistic assumptions about sexuality and is hampered by the near impossibility of establishing links between genes and behavior….Of the relatively small number of siblings in the survey, almost a quarter did not have [the appropriate] markers. Also, the researchers did not do the obvious control experiment or checking for the presence of these markers among heterosexual brothers of the gay men they studied.46

In addition, an editorial in the prestigious British Medical Journal commented on the Hamer research as follows: “The linkage results are ambiguous….In their original analysis Hamer, et al., placed the homosexuality gene eight centimograns distal to the most telomeric marker. The short physical distance between this marker and the telomere, however, renders this result questionable.”47

The editorial concluded: “The claim of linkage of male homosexuality to chromosome Xq28 has wide social and political implications. Yet the scientific question is a complex one, and the interpretation of the results is hampered by methodological uncertainties.”48

Finally, Dr. Paul Cameron and colleagues, after careful examination of this study and consultation with various experts, also rejected Hamer’s conclusions. They pointed out: A correlation for specific genetic markers dies not imply that a gene or genes caused the brothers’ homosexuality. The results could be pointing to another trait shared by these subjects and disproportionately common in gays, such as promiscuity, exhibitionism, or other personality characteristics known to be associated with male homosexuality.49

33r. Charles Socarides, taped interview for “The John Ankerberg Show.”
34r. Kenneth Klivington, in Newsweek, February 24, 1992.
45:Lbid
46:Lbid
47:”Genetic Linkage,” p.337.
48:Lbid., p.338
49:Cameron, “Chromosomal Difference in Gays?”

arty: aperwork

 

[Bent]

Re: California takes a step back wards!

like you beleiving the bible?

No, unlike. Bible aside, when was the last time you saw a homosexual animal or bird?

 

[5-90]

Re: California takes a step back wards!

I dont care if their fighting swords or slapping slugs...

Gawd. You owe me a keyboard now, you putz! And, I'll need my nose relined...

"I don't care who ya are, that's funny right thar.":clap: :clap: :clap: :wave:

 

[mage]

Marriage alone confuses me....
Why do most go before GOD to get married but go to a MAN (Judge) to get divorced. I don't see the sanctity of marriage in our society.

I say.. its the "Land of the free"... to each there own, no skin off my nose.

But, just don't kiss in public.. it turns my stomach.:smootch:+:spin3:=:wow: GwaH!!

(I never use smilies but couldn't resist)

 

[5-90]

Re: California takes a step back wards!

No, unlike. Bible aside, when was the last time you saw a homosexual animal or bird?

While homosexual behaviour may not be the norm, it is common (at least among primate, canines, and quite a few other "pack mammals") for dominance/submission in a pack relationship to be established and reinforced by the dominant animal - either the alpha male, or some other high-ranking male in the pack - to "sexually mount" a lesser animal in order to convince it/him to take a more submissive attitude.

This sort of pseudosexual activity is not carried to climax (the "relationship is not consummated," as it were,) but it is still homosexual behaviour. It is not used for individual gratification - that we can tell - either, but used to establish ranking of male members of a pack, to hold the position, and to establish what appears to be a "command order" within the pack with an eye toward the survival of the pack.

Yes, I know - this isn't for sexual gratification per se. If it were, there would be lesser pack males going about with sore bungholes. However, the fact that it is "homosexual behaviour" cannot be readily ignored in this context...

Shifting gears - if the "gay gene" is carried in a locus on the X chromosome, would it then have a dominant counterpart on the Y? This would explain the preponderance of "straight" men, but it would still allow men to be carriers of the "gay gene" - which would allow them to father lesbians. For a recessive to express itself, it has to either A) be reinforced by a like recessive gene locus in both chromosomes, and one comes from each parent; or B) be allowed to express by not being suppressed by a dominant gene in the same locus on the other chromosome.

You know, I'm starting to enjoy this debate - but I'm still cleaning up after reading that "fighting swords or slapping slugs" line earler. I don't do spit-takes very often, but if I do - it takes about an hour to clean up...

 

[Bent]

Re: California takes a step back wards!

While homosexual behaviour...

See, that's why I didn't ask you!

 

[5-90]

Re: California takes a step back wards!

See, that's why I didn't ask you!

Heh. I read it as an open question - and answered. :lecture:

Just trying to bring a little perspective into things, you know?

 

[Trail-Axe]

X2!!! What harm are gay's doing to you personally or anyone else? What harm is done to you if same sex marriages are legal?

If everyone did it, the human race would cease to exist. That sounds very harmful to me. Aside from the religious arguments of inviting God's wrath upon the land that is defiled by it, there is even a commonsense approach. It is obvious that we were created, or if you prefer, evolved, to procreate. Procreation does not happen when homosexuality is practiced. And if procreation is only possible between a man and a woman, then both a logical and of course a religious view would teach us that this is also best for our children. A child needs the strength of his or her father, mixed in with the tenderness of the mother. If we raise our children to be feminists, who will defend this great country of our?

I have read some articles that suggest the fall of Rome was due in part to the rise and prevalence of homosexuality amongst its leaders and acceptance amongst its populous. Seem it made the men more passive, which is not a good trait to have when defending your turf.

 

[kristuphir]

Re: California takes a step back wards!

While homosexual behaviour may not be the norm, it is common (at least among primate, canines, and quite a few other "pack mammals") for dominance/submission in a pack relationship to be established and reinforced by the dominant animal - either the alpha male, or some other high-ranking male in the pack - to "sexually mount" a lesser animal in order to convince it/him to take a more submissive attitude.

This sort of pseudosexual activity is not carried to climax (the "relationship is not consummated," as it were,) but it is still homosexual behaviour. It is not used for individual gratification - that we can tell - either, but used to establish ranking of male members of a pack, to hold the position, and to establish what appears to be a "command order" within the pack with an eye toward the survival of the pack.

Yes, I know - this isn't for sexual gratification per se. If it were, there would be lesser pack males going about with sore bungholes. However, the fact that it is "homosexual behaviour" cannot be readily ignored in this context...

And, ahem, I know it's just Wikipedia, but: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_animals

And about informed consent, I will have to get back to you another time when I've had more time to think on it - instead, I've been beating on control arms. I hate bushings. Anyway, I will say that the age thing certainly seems debatable because of what you see walking around the malls of our country these days and how sexually aware our youth obviously are, but then you run into the whole "who am I to decide when someone else is making informed consent?" obstacle that you mention.

In any case, informed consent of polygamists and those incestuous folks, to me, has very little to do with the subject at hand...

Just think, people had these reason-mixed-with-vitriol debates about every societal change we've been through, whether it was ending slavery or allowing women to vote, and you'd find few people who'd argue in favor of either of those things turning out differently. I guess I will fail to see why this should be any different right up until God smites the pervs off the face of the country and takes us all with them as punishment. Or something.

 

[kristuphir]

If everyone did it, the human race would cease to exist.

Now *I* need a new keyboard. Are you for real? If you haven't noticed, not everyone does it. It's not a fad that's sweeping the nation. Hey, even if it were, we'd still have science and, well, you! to make babies for us!

Last time we checked, the human population on this planet had nearly doubled in the last 30 years. We're not having any trouble procreating. If anything's going to wipe us off the face of the earth, it's *that* or the stresses that puts upon a society...

 

[IntrepidXJ]

If everyone did it, the human race would cease to exist. That sounds very harmful to me.

personally, i think we have an over-population problem as it is....so I see that as a good thing.

 

[cal]

I really don't care much about it, But is nothing sacred? and I really don't like the will of the people being ignored.

Define sacred? If you feel marriage is sacred, why would you deprive people of it?