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 > Overturning of Gay Marriage Ban in CA

Overturning of Gay Marriage Ban in CA (Page 2)
Thread Tools
dcmacdaddy  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Madison, WI
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 6, 2010, 12:30 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Genders still have roles in society, roles that are immutable. At least, until men start giving birth.
The female sex has a role that is immutable (child-bearing). Gender is a social construct and as such what defines a woman's gender, and the roles in which it is manifest, is very much mutable.


Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Last I checked, siblings are gendered like everyone else. Why are they any different that you wouldn't champion their right to marry?
The state has an interest in preventing siblings from marrying due to the negative ramifications of inbreeding.
What are the negative ramifications of gays marrying that the state must feel compelled to prevent?
One should never stop striving for clarity of thought and precision of expression.
I would prefer my humanity sullied with the tarnish of science rather than the gloss of religion.
     
dcmacdaddy  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Madison, WI
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 6, 2010, 12:35 AM
 
As OAW, ebuddy and others have said--myself included--the best solution to this issue is to get states out of the business of granting marriages. States should provide a Certificate of Civil Union to a couple with all the legal/contractual obligations that entails. And religious faiths should then be allowed to decided to whom they offer marriages. However, UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES should the government expect/demand/require religious organizations to perform marriages that would run counter to the beliefs of said religious organization. That decision should be up to the leaders and/or adherents of the faith and no one else.
One should never stop striving for clarity of thought and precision of expression.
I would prefer my humanity sullied with the tarnish of science rather than the gloss of religion.
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 6, 2010, 07:03 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Genders still have roles in society, roles that are immutable. At least, until men start giving birth.
Alright, alright, let's run with this then:

Women:
1. Give Birth
2. ???

Men:
1. Provide for woman
2. Provide sperm for offspring
3. Provide for offspring
4. Build/buy house
5. Fix broken things
6. ???

Alright, now let's see... which of these things are now "distinct" to gender roles in society and marriage?

...

...

...

Last I checked, siblings are gendered like everyone else. Why are they any different that you wouldn't champion their right to marry?
Really? You really want to pretend that the "siblings will get married" argument comes down to an issue of gender? Really?

Didn't I already mention "strawman"?

greg
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
mrtew
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: South Detroit
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 6, 2010, 07:30 AM
 
Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy View Post
As OAW, ebuddy and others have said--myself included--the best solution to this issue is to get states out of the business of granting marriages. States should provide a Certificate of Civil Union to a couple with all the legal/contractual obligations that entails. And religious faiths should then be allowed to decided to whom they offer marriages. UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES should the government expect/demand/require religious organizations to perform marriages that would run counter to the beliefs of said religious organization. That decision should be up to the leaders and/or adherents of the faith and no one else.
As an atheist I don't believe in any religious BS and I totally agree with you. I think government and religion should be more separate than they are now; definitely not more control of either one by the other one.

It does amuse me when people assume that will mean that religious marriage will remain the property of straight people. Gays have been getting married in churches for decades - the only question was civil marriages, but if that can be solved just by changing the word "marriage" to "civil union" I guess that's ok. It does kind of seem like that plays right into the hands of the people who argue that gays are attacking the institution of marriage or destroying the definition of marriage though. Plus there are already many states that allow equal marriage and the court basically just ruled that all the rest have to so it's a little late to change the wording now.

I love the U.S., but we need some time apart.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 6, 2010, 07:37 AM
 
Originally Posted by olePigeon View Post
Inbreeding increases significantly the risks of hereditary genetic disorders.
If you felt that marriage had anything to do with procreation, you wouldn't be arguing for gay marriage would you? There's an increased risk of birth defects through pregnancies at certain ages too, but I'm not sure the State is going to deny two 50 yr olds from getting married. Right?
ebuddy
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 6, 2010, 07:39 AM
 
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post
Alright, alright, let's run with this then:

Women:
1. Give Birth
2. ???

Men:
1. Provide for woman
2. Provide sperm for offspring
3. Provide for offspring
4. Build/buy house
5. Fix broken things
6. ???

Alright, now let's see... which of these things are now "distinct" to gender roles in society and marriage?

...

...

...


Really? You really want to pretend that the "siblings will get married" argument comes down to an issue of gender? Really?

Didn't I already mention "strawman"?

greg
Are you married to a woman greg? I ask because you seem to view roles as laughable when you've pretty much highlighted the norm in most households to this day.
ebuddy
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 6, 2010, 07:45 AM
 
Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy View Post
The female sex has a role that is immutable (child-bearing). Gender is a social construct and as such what defines a woman's gender, and the roles in which it is manifest, is very much mutable.
I'm not sure I can agree with this. There are a wealth of studies to show differences all the way down to the way a man holds a child from the way a woman holds a child. Now... there may be ideals of roles that are human constructs, but I'm sure I could point to the fact that our immutable differences were an integral part of their formation.

The state has an interest in preventing siblings from marrying due to the negative ramifications of inbreeding.
What are the negative ramifications of gays marrying that the state must feel compelled to prevent?
Again, if marriage were viewed as being an issue of procreation, we'd deny certain ages from marrying as well due to increased risk of birth defects. I'm pretty sure the state doesn't sanction sibling marriage more because they think it's yucky, not unlike gay marriage. I'm just sayin'. It's simply a matter of what the state will incentivize over what they will not.
ebuddy
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 6, 2010, 07:56 AM
 
Really? Because my wife makes more money than I do, and bought her own house. And I suppose if/when she ever has a kid, she'd be able to provide for it if I wasn't there, too. The single working professional mom is ubiquitous these days.

I guess I still have to provide sperm, and she has to have the baby. And I guess I'd be more likely to "fix broken things" - but in all honesty we might be just as likely to pay someone else to fix them, just like she probably would if I wasn't there.

In fact, to be honest with you, the only couples I know who have a one-household income with distinct "gender roles" - the man making the money while the woman has the kids and cares for them and possibly has a lower-paid job with flexible hours - are evangelical Christian friends or traditional Indian couples. I don't know anyone - anyone - else in the professional world who strictly adheres to these "traditional" roles. The woman takes her alloted maternity leave and has the baby, and perhaps takes more time off than the man here and there. Otherwise, everyone I know has a two-income household. In fact, in my line of work a man also gets "maternity leave" (a shorter one), and in fact several people that I know have taken it lately.

Traditional gender roles, and the stay-at-home wife, are things of the past. Especially so to a female judge.

greg
( Last edited by ShortcutToMoncton; Aug 6, 2010 at 10:09 AM. )
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 6, 2010, 10:40 AM
 
Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy View Post
What are the negative ramifications of gays marrying that the state must feel compelled to prevent?
Gay sex?
     
smacintush
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Across from the wallpaper store.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 6, 2010, 11:06 AM
 
Originally Posted by Buckaroo View Post
There is NO doubt that this was a wrong decision. It goes against the legal ability of the people to create laws based on what they believe is correct.

This subjective judgement WILL be overturned.
Yeah well, there are some things (well, I'd say many things) that the government has no business deciding.
Being in debt and celebrating a lower deficit is like being on a diet and celebrating the fact you gained two pounds this week instead of five.
     
smacintush
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Across from the wallpaper store.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 6, 2010, 11:13 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Care to explain why sexual orientation is a "protected" class? Look, as long as the government insists on being in the "marriage" business, it should grant civil unions to any two people who want to be married, but I'm not sure I understand the "equal protection" argument. I mean, a marriage of siblings wouldn't affect my marriage either, but I don't see anyone using the "equal protection" clause to argue their right to marry.
The class isn't "homosexuals", the class is "individuals".
Being in debt and celebrating a lower deficit is like being on a diet and celebrating the fact you gained two pounds this week instead of five.
     
OldManMac
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 6, 2010, 11:20 AM
 
Originally Posted by ironknee View Post
why do you care if gays marry?

Because some people need to stick their noses in other peoples' business. It gives them a diversion from facing their own issues.
     
smacintush
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Across from the wallpaper store.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 6, 2010, 11:23 AM
 
Gay marriage ban = social engineering.

I thought conservatives were against government social engineering.

Maybe not.
Being in debt and celebrating a lower deficit is like being on a diet and celebrating the fact you gained two pounds this week instead of five.
     
OldManMac
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 6, 2010, 11:23 AM
 
Originally Posted by Buckaroo View Post
There is NO doubt that this was a wrong decision. It goes against the legal ability of the people to create laws based on what they believe is correct.

This subjective judgement WILL be overturned.
At one time people believed it was correct to deny women the vote. At one time people believed it was correct to consider black people as property. At one time people believed that blacks shouldn't marry whites. At one time people believed the earth was flat.

FAIL.
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 6, 2010, 12:28 PM
 
At one time we thought Obama was qualified. At one time 'Change' was a good thing. At one time we weren't forced to choose between Gov't healthcare or a fine.

FAIL
     
Oisín
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Copenhagen
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 6, 2010, 12:30 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
Gay sex?
No, he said negative ramifications.

Plus, gay marriages would surely be the most efficient way of diminishing the amount of gay sex being had. Everyone knows your sex life dies when you marry.
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 6, 2010, 12:33 PM
 
     
smacintush
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Across from the wallpaper store.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 6, 2010, 01:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
At one time we thought Obama was qualified. At one time 'Change' was a good thing. At one time we weren't forced to choose between Gov't healthcare or a fine.

FAIL
Sheer genius.

Now, is there actually an intellectual argument for the arbitrary imposition of morality on American individuals of the same sex who happen to want to marry? Or, are ALL of these arguments as hypocritical and emotion based as they seem?
Being in debt and celebrating a lower deficit is like being on a diet and celebrating the fact you gained two pounds this week instead of five.
     
smacintush
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Across from the wallpaper store.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 6, 2010, 01:13 PM
 
Originally Posted by Oisín View Post
No, he said negative ramifications.

Plus, gay marriages would surely be the most efficient way of diminishing the amount of gay sex being had. Everyone knows your sex life dies when you marry.
It doesn't die, it just debilitates to the point that you eventually accept that it needs to be euthanized.

I'm not bitter.
Being in debt and celebrating a lower deficit is like being on a diet and celebrating the fact you gained two pounds this week instead of five.
     
olePigeon
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 6, 2010, 02:34 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
If you felt that marriage had anything to do with procreation, you wouldn't be arguing for gay marriage would you?
No, it has to do with varying degree of risk, which gray marriage introduces none.

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
There's an increased risk of birth defects through pregnancies at certain ages too...
Inbreeding compounds the risk with each successive generation, unlike age related risks. Inbreeding is inherently more dangerous than an older pregnancy.

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
...I'm not sure the State is going to deny two 50 yr olds from getting married. Right?
Why wouldn't they? Some people are arguing that states should be able to deny marriage to one specific group of people, gays. It could just as easily be 50-year-olds, Jews, or left-handed people.
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
sek929
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Cape Cod, MA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 6, 2010, 02:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
At one time we thought Obama was qualified. At one time 'Change' was a good thing. At one time we weren't forced to choose between Gov't healthcare or a fine.

FAIL
So I guess this is your way of saying "I have nothing relevant to say on the topic at hand yet will take this opportunity to bash Libruls for no reason"

Guess what? Gay marriage will be allowed across the whole country in time. There is nothing that hate-filled ignorant people can do about it, it's gonna happen. When it does happen, people will look back and wonder why others were so concerned in the first place. Why were these people so stuck in their ways, so intolerant, so nostalgic for a time of moral values that never existed?
     
mrtew
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: South Detroit
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 6, 2010, 07:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by sek929 View Post
Guess what? Gay marriage will be allowed across the whole country in time.
Guess what. That time came two days ago. The federal court ruled that the US Constitution's 14th amendment's equality clause prohibits states from banning gay marriage. It hasn't sunk in that the day has come I don't think. There are still the obligatory appeals and the official paperwork regarding ripping up the amendments to all the constitutions that were defiled by the religious wackos and their sheeple but it's truly the dawn of a new era. There's no way the appeals or supreme court will overturn the decisions and say that yeah it's fine for 52% of the voters (probably about 20% of the population of the state or less) to decide that some people are more equal than others. Maybe 10 years ago but it's incredible how fast the world changes. It's time to start celebrating!

By the way did you see the name of the case. It was the Perry v. Swartzenegger! After all his open-mindedness regarding equal rights the poor governor got dragged into the case as the representative of discrimination!!! I'm so glad he's never wavered from his social-liberal position and has made the statement that he did today...

Schwarzenegger calls for same-sex weddings
The Associated Press: Schwarzenegger calls for same-sex weddings
SAN FRANCISCO — California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown have filed motions calling for resumption of same-sex weddings in the state.
The officials filed the motions after U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker previously overturned Proposition 8, California's voter-approved gay marriage ban.
Resuming gay marriage "is consistent with Californias long history of treating all people and their relationships with equal dignity and respect," Schwarzenegger said in his legal filing.

I love the U.S., but we need some time apart.
     
OldManMac
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 6, 2010, 11:13 PM
 
Originally Posted by sek929 View Post
So I guess this is your way of saying "I have nothing relevant to say on the topic at hand yet will take this opportunity to bash Libruls for no reason"
Of course it is.

Guess what? Gay marriage will be allowed across the whole country in time. There is nothing that hate-filled ignorant people can do about it, it's gonna happen. When it does happen, people will look back and wonder why others were so concerned in the first place. Why were these people so stuck in their ways, so intolerant, so nostalgic for a time of moral values that never existed?
I look forward to the day when I can walk my daughter down the aisle. It's the one remaining goal I hope to achieve before I die.
     
dcmacdaddy  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Madison, WI
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 7, 2010, 12:27 AM
 
Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy View Post
What are the negative ramifications of gays marrying that the state must feel compelled to prevent?

Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
Gay sex?
Nope.

The Supreme Court has decided already that there are not sufficient negative ramifications to gay sex that would compel the state to try and prevent it (gay sex) from happening.
One should never stop striving for clarity of thought and precision of expression.
I would prefer my humanity sullied with the tarnish of science rather than the gloss of religion.
     
dcmacdaddy  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Madison, WI
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 7, 2010, 12:28 AM
 
Originally Posted by Oisín View Post
Plus, gay marriages would surely be the most efficient way of diminishing the amount of gay sex being had. Everyone knows your sex life dies when you marry.
True dat.
One should never stop striving for clarity of thought and precision of expression.
I would prefer my humanity sullied with the tarnish of science rather than the gloss of religion.
     
kylef
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Northern Ireland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 7, 2010, 08:33 AM
 
I disagree on personal religious grounds; but the first amendment makes my view somewhat redundant. I accept the court's decision, but don't agree with it.
     
mrtew
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: South Detroit
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 7, 2010, 10:32 AM
 
Originally Posted by kylef View Post
I disagree on personal religious grounds; but the first amendment makes my view somewhat redundant. I accept the court's decision, but don't agree with it.
Wow that sure is a refreshing viewpoint! Come to think of it, there are some laws I disagree with that I accept too! I hope your attitude of acceptance spreads amongst those of faith and other people too frequently associated with intolerance. Somehow, despite our shared love of freedom and equality, we still fall into the trap of thinking we need to take away the freedom and equality of others. Bravo to you!

I love the U.S., but we need some time apart.
     
smacintush
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Across from the wallpaper store.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 7, 2010, 10:45 AM
 
Originally Posted by mrtew View Post
Wow that sure is a refreshing viewpoint! Come to think of it, there are some laws I disagree with that I accept too! I hope your attitude of acceptance spreads amongst those of faith and other people too frequently associated with intolerance. Somehow, despite our shared love of freedom and equality, we still fall into the trap of thinking we need to take away the freedom and equality of others. Bravo to you!
I disagree, it's not refreshing generally speaking.

If one genuinely disagrees with something they shouldn't just "accept" it. They should be sure that their disagreement is for the right reason and on solid footing, then fight against it in whatever way they can. If the court were to have ruled the other way would you just "accept" it?

Of course, I have never heard a reason against gay marriage that was actually logical, moral, or constitutional so if some wish to lie down and play dead I guess it's all the better.
Being in debt and celebrating a lower deficit is like being on a diet and celebrating the fact you gained two pounds this week instead of five.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 7, 2010, 10:48 AM
 
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post
Traditional gender roles, and the stay-at-home wife, are things of the past. Especially so to a female judge. greg
Just to make sure I got this right, you're defining roles solely by income and/or career? So... because your wife makes more than you, you two have no distinguishable roles in the household? BTW, for all I know, it is not just your wife who makes more than you, but most of society. One's role is no greater or lesser by virtue of their bank account. Roles are important and in households where the father and/or mother have not abandoned their roles, children fare much better.

Now that women are fully integrated into the professional arena, roles are all, but a thing of ancient history right? Wrong. Take this article on male and female scientists for example:

A new study from the Michelle R. Clayman Institute for Gender Research at Stanford University has found that female scientists do 54 percent of their core household tasks, such as cooking, cleaning, and laundry—about twice as much as their male counterparts. (Paid help and children made up some of the difference.) The results reinforce the findings of other studies. Most important, they indicate that women often have more obligations at home and lower retention rates in their fields.

A study published in the latest issue of Academe, "Housework Is an Academic Issue," found that women's academic rank had little impact on their household-chore percentage; senior and junior faculty members put in similar hours. Women also worked at their paying jobs about 56 hours a week, almost the same number of hours as men do.

Men contributed more to home repair, finance, and yard and car care. But those tasks took about one-quarter of the 19.3 hours a week spent in a home on core household tasks, according to the study.


How many times have we heard "times they are a changin'" only to find out that they're pretty much the same as they've always been, just spun differently for an argument? Anyway, I won't patronize you with the wealth of studies that show major differences between men and women, mothers and fathers; as these things should be patently obvious to anyone interested in something other than being argumentative. If you don't think these differences manifest in societal "roles", we're simply not going to agree.
( Last edited by ebuddy; Aug 7, 2010 at 11:02 AM. )
ebuddy
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 7, 2010, 11:02 AM
 
Originally Posted by olePigeon View Post
No, it has to do with varying degree of risk, which gray marriage introduces none.
Does it matter if either of the two parties are sterile? Should a sibling marriage be denied then? The point is, it has little to do with what the State discourages and everything to do with what the state encourages. A gay man can marry a lesbian woman if they want a state-sanctioned relationship. If they want lifelong love, the state can neither grant them this nor take it away. Love is an inalienable right, marriage is not.

Inbreeding compounds the risk with each successive generation, unlike age related risks. Inbreeding is inherently more dangerous than an older pregnancy.
The truth is sibling marriage is not something the state wants to encourage. It cannot regard all conditions for which it would discourage, again; only that which it would encourage. Right or wrong, marriage between man and woman happens to be that condition.

Why wouldn't they? Some people are arguing that states should be able to deny marriage to one specific group of people, gays. It could just as easily be 50-year-olds, Jews, or left-handed people.
Can one really slip up a slope? Strange argument olePigeon. Nonetheless, this argument seems to be predicated on the assumption that sexual orientation is genetic instead of psychosocial/environmental. We've been over this and it never gets either of us anywhere.
( Last edited by ebuddy; Aug 7, 2010 at 11:10 AM. )
ebuddy
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 7, 2010, 11:13 AM
 
But, I didn't say that there's "no difference" in gender roles; once again you are creating a straw man for the purposes of argument. I think it's patently clear that there still are many differences. But that's not what I said, and it's not what the judge that I quoted said. They said "genders were seen as having distinct roles in society and in marriage."

You think those studies reflect that it's "the same as it's always been"? Go back to the time from which "the exclusion exists" as the decision put it. There you will find distinct roles. Today's "gender roles" look nothing - nothing - like those.

greg
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 7, 2010, 11:19 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
DNonetheless, this argument seems to be predicated on the assumption that sexual orientation is genetic instead of psychosocial/environmental.
And you don't think genetics are involved?

greg
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 7, 2010, 11:22 AM
 
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post
And you don't think genetics are involved?

greg
I think psychosocial/environmental factors play a much more profound role in sexual orientation than what is known of genetic causation.
ebuddy
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 7, 2010, 12:04 PM
 
Then how do you explain children who could be obviously identified as preferring a different gender, who later identify as being gay?

I ask because in the last few years, a number of guys who've I've associated with from childhood have come out (in their early/mid 20s). All of them clearly identified with a "feminine mindset" from the time they were 3 or 4 - girls clothes, preferred to associate with girls rather than guys, preferred what we'd call "girl's activities" rather than do what other boys did, yadda yadda yadda.

I'd called them all by about 10 years ago. One remains a holdout - but he'll come out, mark my words.

I had a conversation with my parents about it some time ago. They're both strongly conservative evangelical Christian - the Creation Museum type - and it was fascinating to see them obviously struggle to reconcile their longstanding "being gay is a choice" stance with what they'd seen from those boys as they watched them grow up.

greg
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
smacintush
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Across from the wallpaper store.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 7, 2010, 01:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Love is an inalienable right, marriage is not.
How about being treated equally by the government?

Driving is not a right either, would you support state's rights to prevent people from driving based upon the same type of criteria? (i.e. a "lifestyle choice" that has nothing to do with safety or ability to drive?)
Being in debt and celebrating a lower deficit is like being on a diet and celebrating the fact you gained two pounds this week instead of five.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 7, 2010, 01:16 PM
 
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post
Then how do you explain children who could be obviously identified as preferring a different gender, who later identify as being gay?

I ask because in the last few years, a number of guys who've I've associated with from childhood have come out (in their early/mid 20s). All of them clearly identified with a "feminine mindset" from the time they were 3 or 4 - girls clothes, preferred to associate with girls rather than guys, preferred what we'd call "girl's activities" rather than do what other boys did, yadda yadda yadda.
How would that preclude psychosocial/environmental factors? It's not like three-year-olds don't have an environment, or aren't influenced psychosocially.
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 7, 2010, 01:29 PM
 
I guess that was the kicker I forgot to mention.

3 of the 4 lived in conservative, evangelical, protestant Christian households. The Bible-is-literally-translated, earth-is-6500-years-old, women-wear-skirts-and-cover-their-hair kind.

What possible psychsocial/environmental factor trending to "gay" could those kids have been exposed to? Manlove for mighty King David?

greg
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 7, 2010, 02:18 PM
 
Why would the p/e factors have to be things we culturally consider gay?

Not only could these factors be anything, realistically, you'd have multiple factors involved.
     
mrtew
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: South Detroit
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 7, 2010, 03:33 PM
 
I've always had questions about this whole genetics v. choice/environment debate, especially concerning marriage...

1. If it's genetic then why are almost all gay people born to straight people? And why does it seem like there are more and more gay people as time goes on? Do children of gays have the same chance of ending up straight as those of straight people?
2. If there's even a possibility of a genetic cause then wouldn't the government's interest be encourage gay marriage so that there is less chance of the gene being passed along?
3. What if being gay is genetic for men but a choice for women? Then can the men marry eachother but the women can't? Why is the 'cause' a factor in whether you can discriminate? You can't choose your race but people choose to be Muslim or Jewish or Christian and you can't discriminate against them based on their choice.
4. If it's a choice then why would freedom loving conservatives want the govt to try to manipulate that choice?
5. If the choice really could be manipulated do conservatives really want to steer gay guys into marrying their daughters etc?

I could go on all day.... I'm just glad this whole 'debate' is basically over!

I love the U.S., but we need some time apart.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 7, 2010, 08:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by smacintush View Post
How about being treated equally by the government?
Well now this is where I have a problem. There are fundamental aspects of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Being able to share property and its related documentation, insurance and its related documentation, a life with someone else and all its related documentation are among them. Any other way a State makes for this allowance and/or whatever they chose to call it is no concern of mine, as long any two people who want to share a life together enjoy equal protection under the law. It is my understanding that California had made for this allowance via a family code some time ago. I see the whole thing in California as a dog and pony show of political posturing when IMO they have much bigger fish to fry. In my State I would vote for civil unions for all, but I support whatever it is California chooses to do while hoping they are well-represented for a smooth and painless process. After all, Massachusetts argued for state's rights in allowing same-sex marriage.

Driving is not a right either, would you support state's rights to prevent people from driving based upon the same type of criteria? (i.e. a "lifestyle choice" that has nothing to do with safety or ability to drive?)
Again, it has little to do with what the state discourages and everything to do with what the state encourages in the case of marriage certification and related benefits. The state discourages certain traffic anomalies by having a rigid set of guidelines for eligibility, tests to affirm eligibility, and laws throughout your driving experience to maintain compliance. By not adhering to these guidelines, you are fined and at times imprisoned. To my knowledge, there is no direct benefit paid out to you by the government for driving safely. This goes for gays or straights. The penalties are not severe for gays and lenient for straights. (I mean as long as sober heads prevail behind the badge and bench) A gay person has equal right to representation in defending themselves against the charges. Laws may differ from state-to-state and I support state autonomy for regional anomalies and best practice.

Not unlike olePigeon's slippery-incline argument, I just can't accept the analogy.
ebuddy
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 7, 2010, 09:16 PM
 
Originally Posted by mrtew View Post
I've always had questions about this whole genetics v. choice/environment debate, especially concerning marriage...

1. If it's genetic then why are almost all gay people born to straight people?
Well, apart from the gay sex not leading to children angle, just because you have the genes to express a trait doesn't mean you express the trait yourself. Dark haired parents having a blonde child is a very simple example of this. Sexuality is several orders of magnitude more complicated of course.

Originally Posted by mrtew View Post
And why does it seem like there are more and more gay people as time goes on?
The most obvious answer is that there aren't, just more and more places where someone who's homosexual feels comfortable being out. Likewise, as acceptance increases, they'll be seen in more obvious roles. At the least, these both have an effect on perception.

Originally Posted by mrtew View Post
Do children of gays have the same chance of ending up straight as those of straight people?
My understanding is there's no statistically significant difference.

Originally Posted by mrtew View Post
2. If there's even a possibility of a genetic cause then wouldn't the government's interest be encourage gay marriage so that there is less chance of the gene being passed along?
Assuming they had the interest, it might not do anything anyways. See #1.

Originally Posted by mrtew View Post
3. What if being gay is genetic for men but a choice for women? Then can the men marry eachother but the women can't? Why is the 'cause' a factor in whether you can discriminate?
No idea.

Originally Posted by mrtew View Post
4. If it's a choice then why would freedom loving conservatives want the govt to try to manipulate that choice?
Seems egregiously inconsistent.

Originally Posted by mrtew View Post
5. If the choice really could be manipulated do conservatives really want to steer gay guys into marrying their daughters etc?
I feel the dark poetry coming on with this one, so I'll stop for everyone's benefit.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 7, 2010, 10:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post
Then how do you explain children who could be obviously identified as preferring a different gender, who later identify as being gay?
To be clear, psychosocial/environmental factors can be anything from an immediate, singular event to a sustained period of environmental stimulus. This stimulus can occur prior to a heterosexual child thinking girls are "gross"; more interested in crushing matchbox cars with large stones.

I ask because in the last few years, a number of guys who've I've associated with from childhood have come out (in their early/mid 20s). All of them clearly identified with a "feminine mindset" from the time they were 3 or 4 - girls clothes, preferred to associate with girls rather than guys, preferred what we'd call "girl's activities" rather than do what other boys did, yadda yadda yadda.
I'm sorry greg, but this reads as a bit of an after-school special, caricature of homosexuals. I know gays that range anywhere from effeminate/extravagant to bodybuilders who most decidedly wear men's clothes, beards, ride motorcycles, listen to anything from death metal to Neil Diamond, and don't identify as female in the least bit. They just happen to prefer other men. Some gay men are over-the-top "hey look at me!" gay, some simply become more effeminate as a means of rapport with a particular social "scene", and others will tell you they're gay if it's relevant to a discussion, but don't consider it the beginning and end of their identity.

I'd called them all by about 10 years ago. One remains a holdout - but he'll come out, mark my words.
I'd be very careful with this greg. While you referred to "associates" above, I certainly hope you'd be more sensitive with anyone you'd consider a "friend". You may think you are something of an oracle of sexuality, but getting this wrong can be quite emasculating to men. Placing someone in the path of a social stigma you know exists is patently unfair unless you happen to know first-hand they are gay. Actually, regardless. Don't bother explaining the way they ran, talked, and played with lingerie, lipstick, and barbie dolls as a means of affirming your point with all due respect greg. Not only is chest pounding gay-dar bizarre to me, you could be talking about the gay man on the moon for all I know.

I had a conversation with my parents about it some time ago. They're both strongly conservative evangelical Christian - the Creation Museum type - and it was fascinating to see them obviously struggle to reconcile their longstanding "being gay is a choice" stance with what they'd seen from those boys as they watched them grow up.
Ahh yes, the ol' "strongly conservative evangelical Christian struggling to reconcile their ignorance" anecdote. There were thousands that voted for Prop 8 and they weren't all strongly conservative, evangelical, Creation Museum- anything. Besides, no one claimed being gay is a choice, but if it makes your parents feel any better you can tell them that even genetic homosexuals would have the choice.

Unless of course the "outing gays because it's my job and my business" Avenger strikes again.
ebuddy
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 8, 2010, 04:28 PM
 
Sensitive about what? The guy is gay, but can't admit it largely because his entire family would probably never speak to him again. (Note: my speculation on the reasons - the family thing would be true.) Is that what you mean by "social stigma?"

And I didn't "caricature" homosexuals. Again and again, you keep adding onto my words in order to argue. I said "these gays were feminine"; I didn't say "all gays are feminine."

As for the "ignorant Christian" bit: well? You've got people who base their stance on what's written in the Old Testament and by Paul, I suppose. It's not like they've ever deliberately interacted with a gay person in any meaningful way. They don't have friends who are gay. It's not like they'd ever have one in their church, that's for sure. So what does that make them, then - well-informed about teh gays?

As usual, you're not addressing the argument. Instead you're doing the same old "look over there! Let's argue about that instead!" bit. Blah blah blah.

greg
( Last edited by ShortcutToMoncton; Aug 8, 2010 at 07:03 PM. )
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 8, 2010, 04:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post
As usual, you're not addressing the argument. Instead you're doing the same old "look over there! Let's argue about that instead!" bit. Blah blah blah.

greg
I think ebuddy is actually trying to get something legitimate to debate over. All i see coming from your posts are "I know this guy is gay but he won't admit it" which offers absolutely nothing to the discussion except illumination on your own personal biases. Really, it just gives the impression that you think you know more than anybody else without actually providing anything "scientific."

Given your responses in the other thread, I can't see how you can accuse ebuddy of the same old"Look over there, lets argue about that instead!" bit when thats exactly what you tried to do with me.

The only conclusion I can come up with based upon reading your posts is that you have no tolerance for those who disagree with you and that you're unwilling to consider anything but your own personal experiences - which somehow are more profound and more meaningful than anyone else's.
     
kylef
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Northern Ireland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 8, 2010, 05:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by mrtew View Post
Wow that sure is a refreshing viewpoint! Come to think of it, there are some laws I disagree with that I accept too! I hope your attitude of acceptance spreads amongst those of faith and other people too frequently associated with intolerance. Somehow, despite our shared love of freedom and equality, we still fall into the trap of thinking we need to take away the freedom and equality of others. Bravo to you!
The best thing about a democracy is that everyone's view is heard. The worst thing about a democracy is that no-one shares each other's views entirely
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2010, 01:40 AM
 
Dig this Ted Olson interview with Chris Wallace of Fox News on this matter... Excellent arguments here relating to our constitutional rights:

YouTube - ‪Ted Olson Interview With Fox News Sunday's Chris Wallace‬‎
     
Buckaroo
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2010, 02:41 AM
 
Next we'll have people marrying objects and children.
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2010, 06:19 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
I think psychosocial/environmental factors play a much more profound role in sexual orientation than what is known of genetic causation.
I think you mean genetic predisposition.

Maybe you should read this:

Amazon.com: As Nature Made Him: The Boy Who Was Raised as A Girl (9780060192112): John Colapinto: Books


Hormones have a powerful effect on the mind and body.

Hormones impact almost every cell and organ of the human body, regulating mood, growth, tissue function, metabolism, and sexual and reproductive function.

Sex hormones such as testosterone and estrogen plays a major role in which sex you are attracted.

I'm pretty sure the sex chromosome plays a major role in regulating the sex hormone.

You might also want to look at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_differentiation
( Last edited by hyteckit; Aug 9, 2010 at 07:00 AM. )
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2010, 06:21 AM
 
Originally Posted by Buckaroo View Post
Next we'll have people marrying objects and children.
I see you haven't read anything else besides your last informative post....
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
mrtew
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: South Detroit
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2010, 07:06 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Dig this Ted Olson interview with Chris Wallace of Fox News on this matter... Excellent arguments here relating to our constitutional rights:
YouTube - ‪Ted Olson Interview With Fox News Sunday's Chris Wallace‬‎
That guy is a good talker! He really says it well.



Originally Posted by Buckaroo View Post
Next we'll have people marrying objects and children.
We've had corporations marrying eachother for years...



I love the U.S., but we need some time apart.
     
 
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 11:21 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.,