Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Woooot!! Another state for equality!

Woooot!! Another state for equality!
Thread Tools
OldManMac
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 21, 2014, 05:37 PM
 
Once the dust settles, my daughter's NY marriage will finally be legal in her home state! Fantastic news!

Judge strikes down Michigan ban on gay marriage; state asks for a stay | Detroit Free Press | freep.com
Why is there always money for war, but none for education?
     
Thorzdad
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Nobletucky
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 21, 2014, 05:46 PM
 
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 23, 2014, 05:11 PM
 
You mean -- another state for gay marriage. Equality would be civil unions for acknowledging consanguineous relationships and polygamy for bisexuals and others.

With regard to your daughter specifically of course, the Michigan move is very important and congrats to the both of you.
ebuddy
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 23, 2014, 05:24 PM
 
I'm against gay "marriage", but it's the Christian's own fault this is happening.

Back in the day, when conservative Christian politicians legislated benefits and lower taxes to married couples, they sowed the seed of this.

The church(es) should have never let it happen that a Christian marriage had any bearing and benefits granted by the State.
This now backfired, and it's the Christian's own damn fault.

-t
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 23, 2014, 05:26 PM
 
There won't be real equality until gov't is out of the marriage business, but congrats to your daughter.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 23, 2014, 07:25 PM
 
Government can't completely get out of the marriage business, because marriage can convey citizenship.
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 23, 2014, 07:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
Government can't completely get out of the marriage business, because marriage can convey citizenship.
So can civil unions.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 23, 2014, 08:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
Government can't completely get out of the marriage business, because marriage can convey citizenship.
Well, simple rule: whatever government feels it can't get out of, convey it to both, religious marriages and civil unions.

There, fixed.

-t
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 23, 2014, 09:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
You mean -- another state for gay marriage. Equality would be civil unions for acknowledging consanguineous relationships and polygamy for bisexuals and others.

With regard to your daughter specifically of course, the Michigan move is very important and congrats to the both of you.

It is equality. Being gay is a genetic thing, being in a polygamous relationship is a lifestyle choice.
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2014, 03:14 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
It is equality. Being gay is a genetic thing, being in a polygamous relationship is a lifestyle choice.
No it isn't, at all. That's being as judgemental, and potentially as ignorant, as a person who claims that being gay is "just a choice" because you can override your natural inclinations. The proclivity to have multiple mates may very well be hardcoded into some people, I know I feel much more comfortable in my marriage now, which is my second, than I did in my first.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2014, 07:05 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
It is equality. Being gay is a genetic thing, being in a polygamous relationship is a lifestyle choice.
No, being gay is not a genetic thing. This is like me telling my wife; sorry I keep seeing other women, dear, but polyamory is a genetic thing. LaVay, Bailey & Pillard, Hamer and others have all gone about to identify an innate, genetic component for homosexuality and essentially admit failure. The APA on homosexuality; "Many scientists share the view that sexual orientation is shaped for most people at an early age through complex interactions of biological, psychological, and social factors." For example, must a bisexual be with both sexes or can they not eventually choose? Must Anne Heche finally make a decision that we can then attribute to an immutable, non-voluntary genetic characteristic? Of course not. For many, it appears to be voluntary, in fact a lifestyle choice.The mind is a powerful entity in our lifestyle choices. The psycho-social/environmental stimuli that lends to alcoholism for example, are a powerful influence that only approximately 5% are able to overcome. With such a high rate of recidivism, we might be tempted to say it's genetic or immutable if it didn't have such a deleterious affect on the health of the person. You can be a psychological addict with physical dependency, but you cannot be a physical addict without the psychological component. The mind is a powerful thing.

You've just added another class of people to the marriage laws which could only be equality from a very gay-centric, agendized perspective.
ebuddy
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2014, 07:20 AM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
I'm against gay "marriage", but it's the Christian's own fault this is happening.

Back in the day, when conservative Christian politicians legislated benefits and lower taxes to married couples, they sowed the seed of this.

The church(es) should have never let it happen that a Christian marriage had any bearing and benefits granted by the State.
This now backfired, and it's the Christian's own damn fault.

-t
^^ Very interesting perspective. To add to your point; the original system was one of common law. It wasn't until the government wanted to track black people that marriages began to be certified. Over time, the certification requirement was broadened and a carrot was offered to perpetuate more certifications eventually leading to no more acknowledgement of common law unions. The government was originally out of the marriage business until it wanted a sect of folks under its thumb. I agree that the eventual "sell" of broadening the requirement was likely that of socially-engineering a preferred condition in seeking to encourage the building of a family which likely resonated with a predominantly Christian populace, but because marriage certification could not effectively be founded on reproductive fitness, it was essentially meaningless and would not hold up as an institution.
ebuddy
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2014, 12:27 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
No, being gay is not a genetic thing.
These sorts of studies pertaining to gay genes would indicate otherwise:

Gay Gene Discovery Suggests Sexual Orientation Not a Choice

If homosexuality were about "complex interactions", how would this explain gay animals?

List of animals displaying homosexual behavior - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2014, 12:31 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
No it isn't, at all. That's being as judgemental, and potentially as ignorant, as a person who claims that being gay is "just a choice" because you can override your natural inclinations. The proclivity to have multiple mates may very well be hardcoded into some people, I know I feel much more comfortable in my marriage now, which is my second, than I did in my first.

If it is hardcoded, this does indeed demonstrate my ignorance. I had not heard of any scientific thought about this being the case. If it is, so be it. I believe that any genetically linked sexual ID should have equal rights with variations of this same ID.

Any society is at its best without discrimination, particularly discrimination that can be traced back to being fueled by religious dogma.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2014, 12:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
These sorts of studies pertaining to gay genes would indicate otherwise:

Gay Gene Discovery Suggests Sexual Orientation Not a Choice
Suggests. There are cases of identical twins where one is homosexual, and the other is not. If it was genetic, both would be.

If homosexuality were about "complex interactions", how would this explain gay animals?

List of animals displaying homosexual behavior - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Animals also eat their babies.
45/47
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2014, 12:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
Suggests. There are cases of identical twins where one is homosexual, and the other is not. If it was genetic, both would be.
Why? Twins do not have exactly identical genes.


Animals also eat their babies.
Your point being?
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2014, 12:41 PM
 
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2014, 12:52 PM
 
Would that make it a birth defect?
45/47
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2014, 12:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
Would that make it a birth defect?

No more so than being very tall is a birth defect.

It is pretty easy to read into your comments and make assumptions about you might feel about homosexuality, especially knowing that you are a devout catholic. If you don't want people to make these assumptions, you might want to clarify how you feel about homosexuality.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2014, 01:00 PM
 
Chongo, does Shaddim have a birth defect?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2014, 01:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
^^ Very interesting perspective. To add to your point; the original system was one of common law. It wasn't until the government wanted to track black people that marriages began to be certified. Over time, the certification requirement was broadened and a carrot was offered to perpetuate more certifications eventually leading to no more acknowledgement of common law unions. The government was originally out of the marriage business until it wanted a sect of folks under its thumb. I agree that the eventual "sell" of broadening the requirement was likely that of socially-engineering a preferred condition in seeking to encourage the building of a family which likely resonated with a predominantly Christian populace, but because marriage certification could not effectively be founded on reproductive fitness, it was essentially meaningless and would not hold up as an institution.
I could be wrong here, but I thought that the original English setup circa the Middle Ages was marriage existed as purely a legal construct. You were married under the "common law".

A religious "marriage" was not "marriage" but "holy matrimony", said term reflecting its status as a religious rite.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2014, 01:16 PM
 
I have several cousins that are homosexual. I love them very dearly. The Catechism sums up my beliefs on this quite well. I pray they will live chaste and holy lives.
Catechism of the Catholic Church - PART 3 SECTION 2 CHAPTER 2 ARTICLE 6

The Church has a ministry called Courage. It does not seek to change the men and women who join, but to help them lead chaste and holy lives.

The Five Goals of Courage


The following Five Goals of Courage were created by the members themselves, when Courage was founded. The goals are read at the start of each meeting and each member is called to practice them in daily life.

To live chaste lives in accordance with the Roman Catholic Church's teaching on homosexuality. ( Chastity )

To dedicate our entire lives to Christ through service to others, spiritual reading, prayer, meditation, individual spiritual direction, frequent attendance at Mass, and the frequent reception of the sacraments of Reconciliation and Holy Eucharist. (Prayer and Dedication)

To foster a spirit of fellowship in which we may share with one another our thoughts and experiences, and so ensure that no one will have to face the problems of homosexuality alone. (Fellowship)

To be mindful of the truth that chaste friendships are not only possible but necessary in a chaste Christian life; and to encourage one another in forming and sustaining these friendships. (Support)

To live lives that may serve as good examples to others. (Good Example/Role Model)
My neighbor across the street, who I have known since I was a child, is homosexual and has lived a chaste life for over 50 years. She is an active member in my parish and of Our Lady's Soldality, and an Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion.
45/47
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2014, 01:24 PM
 
Catholicism is goofy to me. The only sanctioned kind of sex is hetero, married sex without a rubber? Is that actually accurate?
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2014, 01:26 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Chongo, does Shaddim have a birth defect?
What are you referring to?
45/47
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2014, 01:27 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
What are you referring to?

His belief that his gravitation towards polygamy might be hardwired into him. If it was, would that be what you call a birth defect?
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2014, 01:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Catholicism is goofy to me. The only sanctioned kind of sex is hetero, married sex without a rubber? Is that actually accurate?
Pretty much. Couples can use Natural Family Planning techniques to space children or conceive.
45/47
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2014, 01:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
His belief that his gravitation towards polygamy might be hardwired into him. If it was, would that be what you call a birth defect?
I did not say it was a birth defect. I asked if that would make it birth defect. (The linked study)
45/47
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2014, 01:51 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
Pretty much. Couples can use Natural Family Planning techniques to space children or conceive.

Why is using a very simple and crude piece of technology (the condom) to assist with family planning taboo? Is preventing a baby in a Catholic family that has no business having a child better than having "proper" sex and having that baby in that family? Why should sex only be enjoyed when the intention is to conceive? What is wrong with two women having a baby via artificial insemination? Can a man and woman have a baby via artificial insemination?

My problem with this mindset is that it seems like this way of thinking doesn't belong in this century. In this century there all sorts of additional options and variables that can be a part of the picture than there were when Catholicism became a thing. It also assumes that a man + woman in marriage is always the ideal circumstance for not only having a kid, but simply having sex. I see no rational reason to believe that this is always the case, and I think you'd have to be able to rationalize this as *always* being the case in order to cling to this belief system as some sort of religious law.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2014, 01:52 PM
 
Anyway, Chongo has explained why he feels the way he does - Catholic stuff. Sorry to drift so far off topic.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2014, 02:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Why is using a very simple and crude piece of technology (the condom) to assist with family planning taboo? Is preventing a baby in a Catholic family that has no business having a child better than having "proper" sex and having that baby in that family? Why should sex only be enjoyed when the intention is to conceive? What is wrong with two women having a baby via artificial insemination? Can a man and woman have a baby via artificial insemination?

My problem with this mindset is that it seems like this way of thinking doesn't belong in this century. In this century there all sorts of additional options and variables that can be a part of the picture than there were when Catholicism became a thing. It also assumes that a man + woman in marriage is always the ideal circumstance for not only having a kid, but simply having sex. I see no rational reason to believe that this is always the case, and I think you'd have to be able to rationalize this as *always* being the case in order to cling to this belief system as some sort of religious law.
Pope Paul VI adressed these in his encyclical Humanae Vitae (1968)

Consequences of Artificial Methods

17. Responsible men can become more deeply convinced of the truth of the doctrine laid down by the Church on this issue if they reflect on the consequences of methods and plans for artificial birth control. Let them first consider how easily this course of action could open wide the way for marital infidelity and a general lowering of moral standards. Not much experience is needed to be fully aware of human weakness and to understand that human beings—and especially the young, who are so exposed to temptation—need incentives to keep the moral law, and it is an evil thing to make it easy for them to break that law. Another effect that gives cause for alarm is that a man who grows accustomed to the use of contraceptive methods may forget the reverence due to a woman, and, disregarding her physical and emotional equilibrium, reduce her to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of his own desires, no longer considering her as his partner whom he should surround with care and affection.

Finally, careful consideration should be given to the danger of this power passing into the hands of those public authorities who care little for the precepts of the moral law. Who will blame a government which in its attempt to resolve the problems affecting an entire country resorts to the same measures as are regarded as lawful by married people in the solution of a particular family difficulty? Who will prevent public authorities from favoring those contraceptive methods which they consider more effective? Should they regard this as necessary, they may even impose their use on everyone. It could well happen, therefore, that when people, either individually or in family or social life, experience the inherent difficulties of the divine law and are determined to avoid them, they may give into the hands of public authorities the power to intervene in the most personal and intimate responsibility of husband and wife.
These have been proven true
45/47
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2014, 02:02 PM
 
Thanks for the info, Chongo. It, of course, doesn't illuminate a whole lot of understanding for me since I'm not held by these sorts of "moral laws" nor do I feel compelled to embrace them, but at least this rationalizes things for those that do.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2014, 02:13 PM
 
@besson

This is just like the gun argument, where you have trouble seeing how citizens with rifles could defeat the government.

The reason it's hard for you to see is because you aren't trying very hard to put yourself in the mindset of a motivated rebel.

With this? You're finding it hard to see because you aren't trying very hard to put yourself in the mindset of someone whose eternal soul is at stake.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2014, 03:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
@besson

This is just like the gun argument, where you have trouble seeing how citizens with rifles could defeat the government.

The reason it's hard for you to see is because you aren't trying very hard to put yourself in the mindset of a motivated rebel.

With this? You're finding it hard to see because you aren't trying very hard to put yourself in the mindset of someone whose eternal soul is at stake.

I don't think it's a question of effort, it's a matter of not finding either mindset terribly rational. If I allow myself to pretend that my eternal soul is at stake, sure this makes perfect sense. How could my eternal soul being at stake not make my choices clear? However, it is of course a big stretch to just go along with this notion, which is the problem I guess. Maybe it's a personal shortcoming of my own, because I'm sure some of my beliefs are equally irrational to others.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2014, 08:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
These sorts of studies pertaining to gay genes would indicate otherwise:

Gay Gene Discovery Suggests Sexual Orientation Not a Choice
I hope you're not just copy-pasting headlines, besson. You'd have to have a very gay-centric perspective to conclude anything other than -- it's possible, though neither determinative nor conclusive; that psychosocial-environmental factors may only account for 60-70% of sexual orientation. While no genes have been identified, some genetic regions may correlate. Building on the work of Dr. Dean Hamer from more than 20 years ago.

And how you'll stretch this to fit or even begin to define the whole of the LGBT community, I'll never know. Not good enough, man. Not even close.

If homosexuality were about "complex interactions", how would this explain gay animals?

List of animals displaying homosexual behavior - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The only "complex interaction" here is with you, my man. I haven't a clue what you're trying to say with the above. Right off the bat, I'd be willing to bet the studies are really showing that animals are displaying bisexual behavior.

Are you talking about people running along shooting sperm at both sexes and other, inanimate objects? Or that some animals choose both sexes and that's gay? Those would be strange arguments. Maybe you're suggesting that animals aren't social? Of course not, that would be silly right? Was it that they don't have a social order or environmental stimuli? Pretty much a no on that one too.
ebuddy
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2014, 08:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
I hope you're not just copy-pasting headlines, besson. You'd have to have a very gay-centric perspective to conclude anything other than -- it's possible, though neither determinative nor conclusive; that psychosocial-environmental factors may only account for 60-70% of sexual orientation. While no genes have been identified, some genetic regions may correlate. Building on the work of Dr. Dean Hamer from more than 20 years ago.
Being able to identify any single genes and identify what they do is also a pretty new scientific level of accomplishment.

If we are to continue this conversation though, I must be able to put things into context... Do you think that climate change and/or men contributing to it is a hoax?

And how you'll stretch this to fit or even begin to define the whole of the LGBT community, I'll never know. Not good enough, man. Not even close.
You are making a strawman argument here. I made no such claims. Before we get lost in smokescreens here, here is your original comment:

No, being gay is not a genetic thing.
If it is not determinative and conclusive that there is a gay gene, it is also not determinative and conclusive that there isn't. Your statement here was very absolute.

The only "complex interaction" here is with you, my man. I haven't a clue what you're trying to say with the above. Right off the bat, I'd be willing to bet the studies are really showing that animals are displaying bisexual behavior.

Are you talking about people running along shooting sperm at both sexes and other, inanimate objects? Or that some animals choose both sexes and that's gay? Those would be strange arguments. Maybe you're suggesting that animals aren't social? Of course not, that would be silly right? Was it that they don't have a social order or environmental stimuli? Pretty much a no on that one too.
My statement was pretty clear, I think. If there were no gay genes, why would there be gay animals? There are no reproductive reasons for homosexuality or bisexuality, and animals (other than us humans) are not capable of complex interactions.
     
aristotles
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 25, 2014, 03:15 AM
 
Not this gay gene thing again? I am sorry if this offends anyone but the current science does not support that hypothesis. Ironically, some avid supporters of the gay gene idea have shouted down scientists presenting evidence contrary to their beliefs as "anti-science"? Ironic?

See:
Prenatal hormones and sexual orientation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There is research showing that brain injuries can sometimes trigger changes in sexual orientation in humans or an abnormal increase in libido.
See:
Hypersexuality or altered sexual preference following brain injury.

Some male dogs have been observed to displaying homosexual activity after being "fixed".

Finally, I would like to present to you the following. For some species, the gender/sex of an individual is determined in the egg not through chromosomes but rather temperature.

See:
Crocodile - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Alligator - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Temperature-dependent sex determination - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I don't think anyone should ever be bullied for any reason but that does not mean that we should go around changing the structure of our society to make people feel better about themselves.

Any church that follows the "bible" instead of the wishes of mankind will never ever accept gay marriage as marriage. I want to make it clear that disagreeing with a position gay people promote does not equate to hating gay people. In a civil society, each individual must have the freedom to believe what they believe and to express it without fear.

Some of you choose to "believe" in the gay gene which is your right but the science just does not seem to add up.

Most examples of "gay" behaviour in animals are the result of being "fixed" or the result of an injury to either their sexual organs which produce hormones or a head injury. It appears that sexuality is largely influenced by hormones either during gestation or at other times depending on the species.

I was bullied by a gay kid in elementary school for a number of years. He tried to use me as a scapegoat to deflect attention from himself and to make him appear "macho" in front of peer males. I just put it out there just in case any of you decide to try to call me any sort of slurs. I have no hate for gay people. I just happen to have a different perspective which makes me less sympathetic for their causes because I know that most bullying of gays is perpetrated by other gays. Scratch that, most bullying of all kids, including straight kids (like me) is done by gay kids looking to "prove" themselves as masculine and tough.

Just to make it absolutely clear, one of the things that kid did was to get other kids to call me a "fag". I never displayed any interest of that sort but looking back, that bully did. It was unwanted attention. In later years, I felt sorry for him and forgave not only him but all of the other kids that join in on calling me names. If you were to ask the girls in my class, they would vouch for me as a "straight" arrow if you get my drift.
--
Aristotle
15" rMBP 2.7 Ghz ,16GB, 768GB SSD, 64GB iPhone 5 S⃣ 128GB iPad Air LTE
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 25, 2014, 08:10 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Being able to identify any single genes and identify what they do is also a pretty new scientific level of accomplishment.
At best, it's possible that psychosocial-environmental factors can account for 60-70% of sexual orientation. That's the product of the study you cited with a headline that shrieks sensationalism. Again, this is no different than Hamer's findings from 20 years ago -- they've gotten absolutely nowhere.

If we are to continue this conversation though, I must be able to put things into context... Do you think that climate change and/or men contributing to it is a hoax?
No sir, it's the product of an intergovernmental panel seeking to thrust Kyoto protocol and a new commodity over which it can readily manipulate the monetary value. Mankind contributes a minute percentage of overall CO2 output which is the primary GHG culprit for warming but is being blamed for the lion's share of global warming. When warming isn't apparent, change the narrative to climate change. What that has to do with sexual orientation or even how the disciplines could possibly hope to intersect, I'm dying to hear. Otherwise, I'm certain if you were able to critically analyze whatever point you're hoping to make with this attempted "got'cha moment", you'd find that you're falling through your own trap door.

After all, if the IPCC claimed that 60-70% of climate change were due to natural variability, I wouldn't be nearly as skeptical of their work.

You are making a strawman argument here. I made no such claims. Before we get lost in smokescreens here, here is your original comment:
So... gay means -- 409 gay, male twins?

If it is not determinative and conclusive that there is a gay gene, it is also not determinative and conclusive that there isn't. Your statement here was very absolute.
Hamer, who is gay -- affirmed that sexual orientation is primarily accounted for through psychosocial- environmental factors and more than 20 years later we're saying the exact same things. They're still looking for a "gay gene", but they haven't found one. That means the overwhelming preponderance of evidence, even from those you'd think are passionately bent toward finding something more; supports the psychosocial-environmental account.

My statement was pretty clear, I think. If there were no gay genes, why would there be gay animals? There are no reproductive reasons for homosexuality or bisexuality, and animals (other than us humans) are not capable of complex interactions.
Who said anything about complex interactions, besson? I mean... what you're saying flies in the face of biology and psychology. Does your dog lie on its back for a belly-rub? Does the animal not feel pleasure? Maybe animals are stimulated by one another and by mounting that of the same sex, you're getting all the "feel goodz" without any of that pesky, bloody confrontation and competition. Is that what we humans are supposedly doing?

Somehow I'm certain the gay community would rather you not champion their cause by comparing them to the animal kingdom.
( Last edited by ebuddy; Mar 26, 2014 at 06:25 AM. )
ebuddy
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 25, 2014, 10:05 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Somehow I'm certain the gay community would rather you not champion their cause by comparing them to the animal kingdom.
That's why I pointed out that many animals eat their young. Then there are these wonderful behaviors.

Animal sexual behaviour - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia-Rape
Animal sexual behaviour - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Sexual Cannibalism and Necrophillia
Animal sexual behaviour - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia-Sex between adults and juveniles
Animal sexual behaviour - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Polygamy and Polygyny
Competitive infanticide

in lions, hippopotamuses, and some monkeys, the new male will kill the offspring of the previous alpha male to cause their mothers to become receptive to his sexual advances since they are no longer nursing.
45/47
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 25, 2014, 02:46 PM
 
Don't animals eat their babies as a survival thing?

I'm pretty sure we would do that if our survival depended on it.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 25, 2014, 03:01 PM
 
ebuddy, I was not setting a trap, I was avoiding falling into one.

Your methods here seem to be to research your position, often state it in a very non-plain-English way, and then when challenged ratchet up the complexity, the length of your posts, your data points, and the spin. This is a great debating technique, and it has worked very well for you and I don't think there is anything wrong with what you do, but it is time consuming.

My question about global warming was intended to gauge whether there would be any value pursuing the gay gene thing with you. I figured that if you felt that man made global warming was some sort of global money making conspiracy that I wouldn't get far with gay genes, as there is probably much less data and consensus on this if nothing more than the fact that genetic data is not as understood as climate data.

So far, we've barely delved into this and we already have your trademark tactics at play, including clouding the issue. My original point, which I'll make once again, is that nobody can conclusively say that being gay is not genetic. It might be, it might not be, but unless you yourself are a credible scientist, we are in that loop of trying to convince each other of which credible scientist or scientific study we should deal with, what is credible, blah blah blah...

If you will not claim that there is a possibility that being gay is genetic, I don't think I'll have the stamina to continue this conversation. That was really the only point I was trying to make. I don't mind things blowing up to expand the scope of conversation, but it is sometimes annoying when it seems like my original point, which I think was pretty clear, is danced around.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 25, 2014, 03:12 PM
 
subego's certified, empirical Gay Geneâ„¢ opinion:

Genes make you predisposed to a particular orientation. How that manifests is going to be swayed by environmental factors.

I find it hard to believe your brain is inexorably patterned to find a particular gender interesting in the womb. Maybe this is semantic, but I think you need to see a gender before that process begins.

Edit: I think big hair is hawt. Was I born that way, or did I decide to be that way? Neither.
( Last edited by subego; Mar 25, 2014 at 03:40 PM. )
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 25, 2014, 08:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Don't animals eat their babies as a survival thing?

I'm pretty sure we would do that if our survival depended on it.
I thought I remembered reading that animals may do this if they're stimulated by prey. Not real far from what you've said, but not necessarily hunger.
ebuddy
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 25, 2014, 08:53 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
ebuddy, I was not setting a trap, I was avoiding falling into one.

Your methods here seem to be to research your position, often state it in a very non-plain-English way, and then when challenged ratchet up the complexity, the length of your posts, your data points, and the spin. This is a great debating technique, and it has worked very well for you and I don't think there is anything wrong with what you do, but it is time consuming.
With all due respect, besson, I'm not trying to appeal to folks at a 7th grade reading level. If we're critiquing one another's posting style, I'd say you often debate in a very dishonest manner. I'll use the remainder of your post to illustrate the problem.

My question about global warming was intended to gauge whether there would be any value pursuing the gay gene thing with you. I figured that if you felt that man made global warming was some sort of global money making conspiracy that I wouldn't get far with gay genes, as there is probably much less data and consensus on this if nothing more than the fact that genetic data is not as understood as climate data.
But the two have absolutely nothing to do with one another, with a possible exception for the amount of evidence that cannot, as yet be accounted for. You're just picking a hot-button issue you already know we disagree on and you already know why we disagree. This is dishonest to the core. I don't pick on scientists or science, I pick on zealots bastardizing it for their cause of the day.

So far, we've barely delved into this and we already have your trademark tactics at play, including clouding the issue. My original point, which I'll make once again, is that nobody can conclusively say that being gay is not genetic. It might be, it might not be, but unless you yourself are a credible scientist, we are in that loop of trying to convince each other of which credible scientist or scientific study we should deal with, what is credible, blah blah blah...
I could understand the problem if I were citing my sources to compete with yours, but I'm using your sources. If there is a problem, I don't think it's my unwillingness to accept science. Consensus and data are not in disagreement on the psychosocial-environmental components of sexual orientation and just about every study you'll read on the matter, including the ones you sourced, acknowledges this. You have absolutely no problems at all claiming outright that homosexuality is genetic, but you don't appreciate being called on bs. How do you respond? Shamelessly suggest that others can't say it's not genetic. Again, dishonest to the core.

If you will not claim that there is a possibility that being gay is genetic, I don't think I'll have the stamina to continue this conversation. That was really the only point I was trying to make. I don't mind things blowing up to expand the scope of conversation, but it is sometimes annoying when it seems like my original point, which I think was pretty clear, is danced around.
It's possible genetics may account for up to 30% of sexual orientation with the lion's share being shaped by psychosocial-environmental stimuli. IMO, this leaves plenty of logical room for choice and I don't believe citing links featuring an octopus that shoots sperm indiscriminately is a good argument for human sexuality. That's the only point I was trying to make with you.

Otherwise, I'm not sure a word-count on our last two posts for example, would show that great a difference. What I do know is that I'm compelled to stop you every 7-9 words to address shameless bunk.
ebuddy
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 25, 2014, 10:13 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
It's possible genetics may account for up to 30% of sexual orientation with the lion's share being shaped by psychosocial-environmental stimuli. IMO, this leaves plenty of logical room for choice and I don't believe citing links featuring an octopus that shoots sperm indiscriminately is a good argument for human sexuality. That's the only point I was trying to make with you.
Thanks for being candid here. So, you can see now why I took issue with:

No, being gay is not a genetic thing.
I can see that you didn't mean this as an absolute statement with no qualifications, but hopefully you can understand why I'd interpret otherwise.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 26, 2014, 06:30 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Thanks for being candid here. So, you can see now why I took issue with:

I can see that you didn't mean this as an absolute statement with no qualifications, but hopefully you can understand why I'd interpret otherwise.
No, I haven't a clue why you took issue with me as I was responding to you and others making similarly bold claims with far less to substantiate their view.
ebuddy
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 26, 2014, 07:35 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
If it is hardcoded, this does indeed demonstrate my ignorance. I had not heard of any scientific thought about this being the case. If it is, so be it. I believe that any genetically linked sexual ID should have equal rights with variations of this same ID.

Any society is at its best without discrimination, particularly discrimination that can be traced back to being fueled by religious dogma.
One is as likely as another, why are some people seemingly never able to remain monogamous while others have hardly any issues at all? Let me go over a previous statement I made, I don't believe there's a "gay gene", but I do believe there are strong natural, physiological inclinations that drive us to one sexual preference or another; gay, straight, monogamy, polyamory, and even much more rare variants such as asexuality and paraphilia. As the human population continues to grow, such incidences will become much more common, as nature looks for ways to deal with our larger numbers.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 27, 2014, 01:52 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
One is as likely as another, why are some people seemingly never able to remain monogamous while others have hardly any issues at all? Let me go over a previous statement I made, I don't believe there's a "gay gene", but I do believe there are strong natural, physiological inclinations that drive us to one sexual preference or another; gay, straight, monogamy, polyamory, and even much more rare variants such as asexuality and paraphilia. As the human population continues to grow, such incidences will become much more common, as nature looks for ways to deal with our larger numbers.

Maybe this is just an issue of semantics then. Shouldn't whatever is "natural" to us be a part of our genetic blueprints?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 27, 2014, 02:01 PM
 
Blueprint implies a completeness before building which I don't think really reflects the situation.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 27, 2014, 02:26 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Blueprint implies a completeness before building which I don't think really reflects the situation.
By "building" do you mean pre or post birth? Pre-birth, the genes from the mother and father are getting all mashed together and mixed up. Does this process stop completely sometime before birth?

This is not a leading question at all.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 27, 2014, 02:36 PM
 
I'm referring to the analogy itself.

You make a blueprint, and then that's pretty close to exactly what gets built. This is the way it's going to work for things like your hair color, but for something as complicated as sexuality I'd say you're born with things you'd find on a blueprint. A door, some walls. It isn't until after you're born that those objects start arranging themselves into a ginormous walk-in closet.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:51 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,