Gov. David Paterson of New York has told state agencies to recognize same-sex marriages performed in states and countries where they are legal, his spokeswoman said Wednesday.
The governor’s legal counsel told state agencies in a May 14 memo to revise policies and regulations to recognize same-sex marriages performed in California and Massachusetts as well as Canada and other countries that allow gays and lesbians to marry, said Erin Duggan, the governor’s spokeswoman.
The memo informed state agencies that failing to recognize gay marriages would violate the New York’s human rights law, Duggan said.
Slowly, gradually, as each timorous reactionary whimper dissipates, another class of 2nd-class citizenship continues to end in this land.
Nice links bobbo. I especially like the secret sex lives of animals you posted in #152.
Have you read Dr. Tatiana’s Sex Advice to All Creation? It’s a humorous and light look at a lot of interesting aspects of sex, but not relevant to this conversation.
151 bobbo. Fruit flies, huh?
I would half-expect evolution’s genetic variation engine to provide at least some specialized reason for, and examples of, strictly homosexual individuals existing alongside their heterosexual counterparts, but these are not them.
Fruit flies can be bisexual, you mean.
“…the gene does not cause flies to renounce heterosexuality altogether. If a “gay” fly is surrounded by females instead of males, he’ll fertilize the lady flies. So strictly speaking, the NIH flies are not homosexual but bisexual. And the gene produces no unusual behavior when transplanted into females: the scientists have produced no lesbian fruit flies.
152 Bobbo. When Albert goes after a gannet, that’s a confused inter-species thing. A dog humping your leg is also not “gay”.
153 bobbo “Various biological hypotheses say…” …”But, the biological basis for homosexuality is still a puzzle…”
Why don’t you sort these things out before turning society upside down. Otherwise, let’s accept Intelligent Design assuming it will be proven to be true later.
RBG
#155–RBG==maybe Scott, you, and I should take one step back and clearly define what point we are looking to the internet for links?
I thought it was whether or not homosexuality was genetically driven as exemplified in nature.
Bit of a change to find a website offering up a complete explanation for strictly homosexual individuals to exist? I don’t know, but I assume that would be easy to turn up by surfing some gay blogs with multiple counts of personal testimony?
With all the hate directed at them, no one would “choose” to be homosexual yet the many surveys show 5-8% across time and cultures for the human species? Thats not proof of genetics, but pretty strong correlation?
Two issues made me suspect my fellow man when growing up. Why the hate towards blacks, and why the hate toward homosexuals?? Why don’t people just leave each other alone???
That journey continues.
#156 – bobbo,
Not me on this one. RBG wouldn’t even do the research on how many sexually reproducing animals there are. Nor would he answer whether limiting to chordata (vertebrates) would have been acceptable to him. Nor would he post any links at all in support of any of a number of “self-evident” “inferences” that he has made. There is no further point to this.
RBG is simply so homophobic that he can’t admit it to himself.
I don’t believe him to be lying, at least to us. I just believe he has some seriously unresolved issues. This is why he sets the bar at a significant number of the “2-50 million species on the planet” and requiring exclusive homosexuality. The idea that humans have studied a significant percentage of even only 2 million species is absurd. The idea of documenting exclusive sexuality of either type in, say 25% of 2 million species, or 500,000 species, is ridiculous. RBG simply wants to believe as he does and won’t be swayed by anything.
RBG, let me assure you that I have not known anyone that I felt close enough to ask that was exclusively homosexual. Most gay men I’ve spoken to (anecdotal evidence, at best I realize) at least have tried sex with women. So, they too would fail your exclusivity test. If we were in a healthier more accepting society, the converse would likely be true for heterosexuals. Given the huge bias against homosexuality in society, most heterosexual men have likely not tried homosexual sex. I have no idea whether the same is true for women.
What was the point of exclusivity anyway? Even if someone is purely bisexual and finds love in the arms of the same sex, they should be able to marry their lover. No?
You’ve got real issues RBG; you might consider counseling, or at least some serious introspection.
#157–Scott==when you put vertebrates in parens after chordata do you mean to limit the discussion to that subphylum or do you mean to convey in error that one is synonymous with the other?
I suppose I should also question if you think I would engage in homosexual relations were it not for social disapproval? FYI==my stance is narrow in all circumstances, although I have always thought that Superman looked vaguely heroic. Is that the same thing?
#158 – bobbo,
I believe one chordata is the Latin name for the taxa vertebrates. Taxa is also an interesting word, for one taxa is both singular and plural (like species). For another, it can refer to any level in the hierarchy of life. So animalia, chordata, mamalia, homo, and sapiens are all taxa.
As for whether you, or even I, would engage in homosexual encounters once in a while were there no stigma to it, I cannot say. I too am a product of our society. And, I navigate my course through said society daily. So, if I cannot say for me, I certainly can’t speak for you.
Certainly, I have not had any strong enough urges to overcome the societal stigma. I also am deeply in love with a woman. Just as I do not cheat with other women, I would likely not cheat with men.
So, we’re complex creatures. I’d be more likely to say that were it not for the stigma, probably most of us would experiment during our maturing process.
Really though, it’s too bad we get more of our social behavior from the chimp side of our family than from the bonobo side.
Imagine a society where everyone, male and female, is perfectly bisexual and all aggression is resolved through sex. Further, imagine we were mostly led by women.
Now imagine war in such a society. I can’t.
And, in fact, lethal violence has never been observed in bobobo society, unlike all of the other great apes, including humans.
157 MS:
128 RBG “exists in a wide variety of species of the sexual animals from Earth’s 2-50 million species”
133 RBG Read again: “…in a wide variety of species of the sexual animals from Earth’s 2-50 million species.” It’s phrased that way only because I didn’t have a handy tally of the number of sexual species. But it is to be a huge number.”
135 RBG “in a wide variety of species of the sexual animals from Earth’s 2-50 million species. I’m talking about the set of all the sexual animals separated from the bigger set of all animal species.”
136 Scott. I understood that perfectly well.
156 M Scott: ‘The idea of documenting exclusive sexuality of either type in, say 25% of 2 million species, or 500,000 species, is ridiculous. RBG simply wants to believe as he does and won’t be swayed by anything.”
First, you have to provide something to be swayed with. Second, you should know scientists use economic statistical sampling to come to conclusions.
I’m referring to “exclusive homosexuality” as a convenient term to compare to the equivalent heterosexual person, to be distinguished from bi-sexual. The fact that there is some cross-over amongst these groups is beside the point.
I shouldn’t need to make a link to prove the idea that there are a tremendous number of sexually producing organisms. And your position that by not producing a link, I have not proven something that is “self evident” and therefore this is some kind of further proof of homosexuality is pretty laughable, don’t you think?
Ditto “limiting to chordata (vertebrates)” You can’t make any case for chordata, it hardly matters for anything else.
RBG is simply so homophobic…
You’ve got real issues RBG; you might consider counseling…
Already been there in #145 RBG: “The classic bully tactic designed to effectively and conveniently stop the debate.” These kinds of statements are all you have when you can’t present a case. Why shouldn’t I challenge such weak positions?
156 bobbo. As MS points out, we know homosexual behavior occurs in nature. The question is whether this is indicative of a genetically-driven homosexual animal or whether merely a by-product of confused heterosexuality or plain will-power in the case of humans.
With all the hate directed at them, no one would “choose” to be homosexual…
Classic argument. Ditto: “no one would choose to criticize the basis for homosexuality” – especially these days. Is this then enough to make me right?
There is plenty of scientific data to support the power of “nurture.” I shouldn’t have to prove any such thing here. You may even have heard about the “nature” vs “nurture” debates.
Obviously I’m mostly on the nurture side, which is why I believe such things as “the gay linguistic accent” are products of nurture as well. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof that needs to be challenged at every possible turn, as is the case for any good science. And right now, we have just about dick-all to support the idea of an evolutionary homosexual being.
RBG
This is getting ridiculous. RGB, just admit you’re a homophobe and same sex marriage creeps you out.
#156 – bobbo, RBG,
Actually, maybe I will take the challenge. Here’s a list of claims RBG made on this thread that I think need substantiation (post numbers in parens). Note, a few just need further clarification. My own comments on each point are in brackets. I have ended with the words “Link please” whenever I felt that it was a claim that needed to be backed up with an external source.
RBG, will you provide links for any of these? I’m guessing not.
To others, I apologize for the length of this post, but am making the point that RBG has made many claims that require substantiation from outside sources and has merely passed the buck. Also, the entire evolution conversation began with RBG in post 33, so the onus is definitely on him to back claims.
* (33) … extolling the natural beauty and wonder of homosexual relationships in the face of a half billion years of evolution-inspired sexual reproduction. [needs substantiation that half a billion years have inspired only heterosexuality, and not both hetero and homo sexuality. Link please.]
* (52) With respect to homosexual marriages, if an overwhelming case is never made in support of the biological basis for homosexuality itself, that will completely color how society sees homosexual marriages, and subsequently the law of the land will change accordingly. [Why require an overwhelming case to grant rights to a minority?]
* (52) Similarly, the legal, artificial definition of marriage can only pretend for so long to ignore the primary biological force of nature that is 500 million years of heterosexual evolution. [Since most species do not marry, this makes no sense at all.]
* (52) the idea that homosexuality is some kind of natural condition to be embraced by parents and children will also flop. [This is an assertion of what the natural condition is. You must back this up with something. Why not an article from a psychology journal? Certainly, the assertion that homosexuality is NOT a natural condition, despite it’s existence in all cultures and many other species, would require a lot of evidence to back it up. Link please.]
* (76) As I indicated, the inexorable natural sexual programming in animals (along with free-will in humans) will produce deviation from pre-programmed sexual behavior when environmental cues are ambiguous. [Got a doc to show that any sexual behavior is pre-programmed and if so, that it does not vary from one individual to the next? Link please.]
* (128) … a significant population of homosexuals exists in a wide variety of species of the sexual animals from Earth’s 2-50 million species, do share. [There are two claims in this statement. One is that there are 2-5 million sexually reproducing species. This claim you have already recanted. The other claim is subtly hidden in your statement. For this to be a genuine request for information, you are assuming that a significant percentage of the 2-50 million hypothetical sexually reproducing species have had detailed sexual studies performed. This is bullshit and as a zoologist, you should know that. There is no way that any significant percentage of that number of species have been studied in that detail. So, instead, you have set for me an impossible task so that your own delusional views of homosexuality cannot be challenged. Link please. (times two)]
* (128) I’m talking exclusively homosexual a la human and not just “exhibiting homosexual behavior.” I’m not interested in temporarily confused behavioral by-product of sexual desire …. [This is another piece of total bullshit rewriting the rules at this point to make the already impossible task even more impossible. Why is exclusivity the rule all of a sudden?]
* (128) But what I need are scores of undisputed peer-reviewed studies [Just keep raising the impossibility bar if you want to seem reasonable but still have no hope of changing your views, is that your philosophy?]
* (133) If homosexuality did no collateral harm, I would have no problem with it. [This is a scientific claim regarding psychology. Please provide a reference for the harm the homosexuality causes. Link please.]
* (133) human heterosexuality is generally an all-consuming human trait. [Is it? Do you have some data to back this up? If any significant minority of humans is homosexual, heterosexuality is hardly all-consuming. Link please.]
* (133) If you believe, as I do, that, under the right circumstances, people can be convinced about anything, then laws and sub-cultures that place homosexuality on an equal footing with heterosexuality are dangerous. That should be self-evident. [I don’t. And it isn’t. If humans could be convinced of anything, as you say, including their own sexuality, homosexuality would not exist in a repressive society such as ours. So, if you think something is self-evident, at least go through the motion of searching for a reference. If you had one, you would not need to resort to pointless hollow rhetoric about things being self-evident. Link please.]
* (135) … overarching evolutionary development that is the fusing of genetic material between individuals. [And yet, the vast majority of sex does not result in a fusing of genetic material. Perhaps reproduction is not the primary purpose of sex, at least in humans.]
http://vhemt.org/biobreed.htm#sex
* (135) I’ve already pointed out that it is reasonable that children growing into sexual maturity can be influenced by what society has to say about sex. [No. You haven’t made this point at all. You have stated your opinion. You believe it so strongly you think no link is required. And yet, it is a claim that must be backed up. Link please.]
* (135) It is no stretch of the imagination that children can be influenced ( as adults can be) when presented with these sexual concepts regardless of their base genetic heterosexual programming. [Bullshit. Link please.]
* (139) The fact that men & women have been convinced to engage in so many different types of sexual activities is proof of this. [Doesn’t take much convincing. I guess you don’t enjoy receiving a blowjob. No link please!]
* (145) I’m not going to take the time provide you with studies showing kids can be influenced by what adults have to say. [Why? Do you know anything about how to have a debate? Most kids do not have parents telling them to be homosexual and yet many are. You bet this should require a link.]
* (145) It’s self-evident to all except the most desperate of people. [You like saying self-evident, don’t you. It must be really convincing … to you. I promise it just makes me sure that whenever you say it, I need to be on high alert for yet another false statement.]
* (148) As most folks know around here, I am the link king when it comes to argument. In this case logic is sufficient and the onus is on you and your illogical claim. [Not on this thread. You haven’t provided a single one yet. And, no, you don’t get to shift the burden. You started the line of argument in post #33. The onus is on you to back up your claims.]
* (148) You also like to confuse observations of apparent homosexual behavior as being the case for exclusive homosexuality. [You keep making exclusivity something important and have not explained why yet. Will you test people for exclusive heterosexuality before you allow them to marry?]
* (160) First, you have to provide something to be swayed with. Second, you should know scientists use economic statistical sampling to come to conclusions. [Yes. But a statistical sampling of the species studied, not all species in existence. And, yes, it is up to you to provide the number of species whose sexuality has been studied in detail.]
* (160) I’m referring to “exclusive homosexuality” as a convenient term to compare to the equivalent heterosexual person, to be distinguished from bi-sexual. [Unfortunately, exclusivity is nearly non-existent. So, if what you mean is homosexual, just use the term homosexual instead of bisexual. Unfortunately, it thoroughly validates the cases cited thus far as many of the individuals of many species are decidedly homosexual, though not necessarily exclusively so.]
* I shouldn’t need to make a link to prove the idea that there are a tremendous number of sexually producing organisms. [You made a specific claim about the number. With a smaller number, 500 species would certainly be significant. So I have indeed made my point. If 500 is not enough for you, then you must provide an enormous number of species that have been studied in detail. Link please.]
* (160) I have not proven something that is “self evident” [You have stated much that you believe to be self-evident. It seems to be your favorite rhetoric when making claims that are anything but.]
* (160) and therefore this is some kind of further proof of homosexuality is pretty laughable, don’t you think? [I only claim that you have not made your point. No. I do not claim that makes mine.]
* (160) You can’t make any case for chordata, it hardly matters for anything else. [Well, OK. Then we better legalize biting off the head of one’s partner, killing one’s partner, and hermaphroditic marriages to allow for praying mantids, black widows, and earthworms, respectively.]
* (160) The question is whether this is indicative of a genetically-driven homosexual animal or whether merely a by-product of confused heterosexuality or plain will-power in the case of humans. [Honestly, I’m really surprised you think this matters. I’ll argue it with you all day. But, in the end, so to speak, the only thing that matters is that no one is hurt by homosexuality and people are happy. So, why discriminate against homosexuals. Do you hate them that much? If not, why not let them be happy?]
“SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — California’s highest court Wednesday refused to stay its decision legalizing same-sex marriage in the state, clearing the final hurdle for gay couples to start tying the knot this month.”
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Gay-Marriage.html?hp
(free subscription required)
Looks like the die is cast. Homophobes…. ON THE RUN!
#163 – Mr. Mustard,
Cool. With luck, NY will follow suit. People tried to get NYC to allow it but quickly found out that they were at the wrong level of gov’t.
Really, NYC should just secede. We have so little in common with NYS and even less with most of the rest of the country.
Besides, how cool would an NYC passport be? The city bird could be right on the cover … and you know the city’s bird is the bird.
See Figure One
#162–Scott–that was a “tour de force!” Congrats. I hope you copy and paste a few of your posts, if so, this should be one of them?
I am struck at how too many arguments proceed without definition of what is being
discussed?
What is homosexuality screams out at me. Logic indeed dictates that no sexually reproducing species can be exclusively homosexual? So==by definition no species is exclusively homosexual.
That leaves open the notion that a sexually reproducting species can nontheless produce individuals who are exclusively homosexual. This is possible in theory in that a parent that produces such offspring may also be more fecund and produce more total offspring said offspring including “more” heterosexuals. A net gain or even status quo being maintained in the race to consume our planet?
I think a definitional issue is reached in defining the terrain as nature verses nurture? Either/or solutions are almost always false. “Usually” the answer is a little of both? Most measurable “traits” fall on a bell shaped curve of varying shape. In this case the left edge could be exclusive homosexuality (1-2-3 percent?) then a vast middle section of increasing proclivity towards the hetero to another edge of exclusively hetero which ((my bias tells here)) might be 15-20-25 percent exclusively hetero?
Speaking of definitions, are you homo if you receive a blow job from the same sex or does the title apply only to pitchers?
I think many of Scotts questions above could be resolved just by a little time spent on definitions?
Then a few more could be answered by refining the question debated? Does it really matter what “nature” provides as models? The only relevant issue here is what is natural for human beings? I don’t know why personal testimony or even introspection is not sufficient for such a sociological/psychological phenomenon. We don’t look to nature to determine if love exists.
THEN what is Scotts ultimate winning point==it is the existential role of man to OVERCOME his nature. Values. Do we wish to accept people for what they are, or think they are, or do we wish to add burdens to this short travail of tears?
We should all do what we can to reduce the burden others are forced to bear.
Scott–keep the good stuff coming.
2. #162 Misanthropic Scott
* (133) If you believe, as I do, that, under the right circumstances, people can be convinced about anything, then laws and sub-cultures that place homosexuality on an equal footing with heterosexuality are dangerous. That should be self-evident. [I don’t. And it isn’t. If humans could be convinced of anything, as you say, including their own sexuality, homosexuality would not exist in a repressive society such as ours.
Since you have so much time, I’ll let you find the links for Nazi-ism, holocaust killers, communism, Hare Krishnas & other wacko religions, missionary work, WMDs in Iraq, 911 conspiracies, virgins in heaven, sun goes around Earth, Earth is flat, advertising, Republicans, group think, and a list that goes on forever re people who have been influenced enough to take action.
Cultural perspectives on zoophilia:
http://tinyurl.com/fcmcb
Of course, I could be completely wrong and there’s a gene for this sort of thing too.
By your logic crime, bestiality, polygamy and even leisure suits would not exist because society represses them. If anything, those who dare to question homosexuality are the ones in the closet today.
* (135) … overarching evolutionary development that is the fusing of genetic material between individuals. [And yet, the vast majority of sex does not result in a fusing of genetic material. Perhaps reproduction is not the primary purpose of sex, at least in humans.]
As already indicated, people can willfully override their evolutionary instincts in this case with artificial barriers. Fusing of male & female genetic material is biologically complicated and viability is not always the result. And when biological mistakes happen, the pregnancy is self terminated. Sometimes these mistakes result in an unlikely advantage to the organism. Almost always it does not. So genetic error is required for evolution.
* (135) I’ve already pointed out that it is reasonable that children growing into sexual maturity can be influenced by what society has to say about sex. [No. You haven’t made this point at all. You have stated your opinion
And a reasonable opinion it is, opposed only by someone wishing to be argumentative. I can only play your game so long. But see above for more on this.
* (135) It is no stretch of the imagination that children can be influenced ( as adults can be) when presented with these sexual concepts regardless of their base genetic heterosexual programming. [Bullshit. Link please.]
Dealt with above.
* (139) The fact that men & women have been convinced to engage in so many different types of sexual activities is proof of this. [Doesn’t take much convincing. I guess you don’t enjoy receiving a blowjob. No link please!]
Too late, see cultural bestiality above. Or do you not draw a line with your child’s “sex” education?
* (145) I’m not going to take the time provide you with studies showing kids can be influenced by what adults have to say. [Why? Do you know anything about how to have a debate? Most kids do not have parents telling them to be homosexual and yet many are. You bet this should require a link.]
Dealt with above. The goal here is to minimize the sexual mixed messages to sexually maturing kids from an influential society that sees alternative sexual orientations as healthy and desirable.
* (145) It’s self-evident to all except the most desperate of people. [You like saying self-evident, don’t you. It must be really convincing … to you. I promise it just makes me sure that whenever you say it, I need to be on high alert for yet another false statement.]
Sorry, but some things are self-evident in life. Such as liquid water being wet and that statement. I don’t need to back it up with a link. I’m not interested in having a debate based upon your argumentative sophistry. I’m not interested in being mired in your weird Lysenko-like view of biology.
* (148) As most folks know around here, I am the link king when it comes to argument. In this case logic is sufficient and the onus is on you and your illogical claim. [Not on this thread. You haven’t provided a single one yet. And, no, you don’t get to shift the burden. You started the line of argument in post #33. The onus is on you to back up your claims.]
Everything I stated in #33 is truth. As already said, I’m not interested in parsing and defining each word in response to your “internet-denial-of-service” type of debate tactic. Like the name-calling, it serves only to highlight your need to deflect from the an issue where you have no other useful response or recourse.
RBG
3. #162 Misanthropic Scott
* (148) You also like to confuse observations of apparent homosexual behavior as being the case for exclusive homosexuality. [You keep making exclusivity something important and have not explained why yet. Will you test people for exclusive heterosexuality before you allow them to marry?]
You have to read why I use those choice of words for convenience. I’ve already explained at least twice now, but like the “2-50 million species” issue, I suspect I’ll need to do this again many more times. Try to do better if you want me to make responding worth my time.
* (160) First, you have to provide something to be swayed with. Second, you should know scientists use economic statistical sampling to come to conclusions. [Yes. But a statistical sampling of the species studied, not all species in existence. And, yes, it is up to you to provide the number of species whose sexuality has been studied in detail.]
Dealt with above. You’re now wasting everyone’s time, not just mine. If you have an extraordinary claim, you have to have the extraordinary evidence. I’ve linked to basic biology 101 for you as to why there are two sexes needed, you have nothing. Again, go take a course in biology to discover the extent of zoological studies on Earth. What a time-waster you are. You prove nothing by this tactic other than you like to be argumentative instead of insightful.
* (160) I’m referring to “exclusive homosexuality” as a convenient term to compare to the equivalent heterosexual person, to be distinguished from bi-sexual. [Unfortunately, exclusivity is nearly non-existent. So, if what you mean is homosexual, just use the term homosexual instead of bisexual. Unfortunately, it thoroughly validates the cases cited thus far as many of the individuals of many species are decidedly homosexual, though not necessarily exclusively so.]
As explained, I’m trying to differentiate between genetic-based homosexuality and homosexuality based upon human free-will or temporary heterosexual confusion.
* I shouldn’t need to make a link to prove the idea that there are a tremendous number of sexually producing organisms. [You made a specific claim about the number.]
Oh, and what would that number be?
And of those, if you have evidence that that predominantly homosexual organisms are needed for survival and reproduction, let all of us know about this and we’ll be sure to make a note of it.
* (160) and therefore this is some kind of further proof of homosexuality is pretty laughable, don’t you think? [I only claim that you have not made your point. No. I do not claim that makes mine.]
See basic sexual reproduction link above.
* (160) You can’t make any case for chordata, it hardly matters for anything else. [Well, OK. Then we better legalize biting off the head of one’s partner, killing one’s partner, and hermaphroditic marriages to allow for praying mantids, black widows, and earthworms, respectively.]
Do you also see these as a recurring pattern in the other species too? Or some very specialized behaviors to fill a survival niche. And, what the heck? No homosexual organisms in that list? You’d think there might be, and throughout the other species too, given the critical importance and special status you give to homosexuality.
* (160) The question is whether this is indicative of a genetically-driven homosexual animal or whether merely a by-product of confused heterosexuality or plain will-power in the case of humans. [Honestly, I’m really surprised you think this matters. I’ll argue it with you all day. But, in the end, so to speak, the only thing that matters is that no one is hurt by homosexuality and people are happy. So, why discriminate against homosexuals. Do you hate them that much? If not, why not let them be happy?]
Inquiring minds just got to know. So homosexuality is like a “victimless crime” then: no one gets hurt and it makes people happy. Except as I’ve noted above.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victimless_crime
Someday when you have your evidence all lined up, the important need for human homosexuality can be taught in school biology right alongside sexual reproduction. Until then keep it on the Intelligent Design, and Life From Extraterrestrials dung heap.
My apologies to the rest of DU. I won’t be participating in this kind of DU-abuse again. MS would like me to provide him with a Master’s degree thesis on basic zoology beginning at the elementary school level before he will even admit to its existence. It’s pretty clear that all this was some kind of bizarre distraction effort so as not to discuss what he could not defend.
RBG
#168 – RBG,
I won’t be participating in this kind of DU-abuse again.
Sorry you feel that way. However, I can’t claim to feel any great loss as you have not contributed a single thing to this thread. Even in your last post, you have not answered a single issue that I raised with regard to your posts. In fact, the first time you present a link, it is to support my side of the argument. Thank you.
Good bye.
>>does the title apply only to pitchers?
Gosh, Bobster. You sure know a lot about the lifestyle terminology.
Sure you’re not getting a little action on the DL? Tee hee!
**BUSTED!!**
169 MS I’ve supplied links to the whole rationale behind heterosexual sexual reproduction as taught in schools & universities. You’ve supplied not just nothing of the kind in support of evolutionary homosexuality but virtually nothing, period. Sorry, you did say it “feels good” or something to that effect. But that doesn’t cut it.
So how about I help you along a little then? How about citing the latest research that shows one genetic twin has just over 30% chance of claiming homosexuality if the other claims to be one.
That proves that homosexuality isn’t strictly genetic, else the rate would be 100%. But statistically that shows genetics may not be completely discounted either.
http://tinyurl.com/3vfue7
Now isn’t that a lot better than the crap you chose to dish out?
‘Course there were a lot of limitations to consider.
Is there then something environmental that triggers the homosexual phenotype in some individuals but not the majority? No one knows yet.
How accurate can a self-report questionnaire be?
To what extent did common upbringing influencing results? No one can say.
How accurate can such a statistically low, limited study be? Possibly strong enough to show some valid conclusions.
A population of twins separated at birth where one is homosexual would be far better for study, but the situation is almost impossible to find.
So, very interesting study but, in the presence of necessarily biased methodology & survey limitations, more research, definitive conclusions and the need for similar predictable, repeated confirmations remain to be seen. Certainly too early to shake up society as science goes.
RBG
RBG,
That is some interesting information. Thanks for sharing it. And, thanks for starting to provide links with your opinions.
I do think, however, that the data still shows homosexuality to be natural and normal even if not 100% genetic.
So, if we can agree on that, I would ask you this.
Why deny the right to marry and be happy to anyone?
Personally, I still don’t get your insistence on exclusive homosexuality. And, I never really got why anyone cared if it was genetic. I think there is probably a strong genetic bias.
Even the 30% that you cite would be about double the genetic tendency for type 1 diabetes, which is usually considered genetic.
However, regardless of genetics, why legislate against something so pervasive?
500 species have had homosexuality well documented and another thousand have had it observed to some degree. Every human culture on earth has homosexuality. Homosexuality is well documented on the walls of ancient Jain and Hindu temples. It is well documented in the Bible, though as an admonition. It is well documented from ancient Greece and Rome.
I would say it is well within normal human behavior.
Would you really disagree? I can search for links if you think it necessary. I’m sure the psychological journals are full of references. Is that really not enough to justify legalization of homosexual marriage?
#171
Your arguments revolve around the root cause of homosexuality. Even if homosexuality is purely a conscious choice, it is still insufficient justification for qualifying government benefits and privileges. In other words, whether it is a choice, genetic or a result of environmental effects is wholly irrelevant to whether the government is authorized to disqualify people from privileges based on their sexual preference.
172 MS: I see a difference between a homosexual being and and a being who can simply perform homosexual acts. I swear to you that for enough money (a really, really lot of money), I would perform homosexual acts. (Or not…) Does this make me a homosexual in the same way gay people see themselves? (And yes, I know the old joke that ends with the punchline, “We know what you are, now we’re just haggling about the price.”)
I don’t personally have a problem with gay marriage. But I honestly don’t want anything to interfere with my kids’ delicate sexual maturity by having them face a whole new government-supported overlay of sexually ambiguous messages from society. And I don’t want my government recognizing anything equivalent to the recognition of flying saucers.
You don’t have to respond to that, let’s just agree to disagree. One way or another, I believe science will eventually sort this one out.
If pervasiveness and sheer numbers were the test for truth, then we’d be obligated to recognize religion in all aspects of our society. Here too, you have people who believe in their deepest soul that what they experience is real. But I’ll only accept everything they have to say once they present me with something well beyond their current weak and inadequate scientific proofs.
And also for the record, let me quickly repeat something I posted perhaps years ago: as the cliche goes, my closest friends are gay and I would fight to the death to defend a gay person as I would any person in trouble.
An atheist who likes gay people: your worst nightmare.
173 Thomas. Agreed. But such legislation does not appear magically out of a vacuum. It isn’t the way it should be, or has to be. And it still is fully subject to criticism & change. See RBG #52.
RBG
RBG–well done–you’ve wrapped stupidity in the cloth of fine 5. reasoning. Let me reconstruct.
1. You maintain your ignorance in light of significant evidence waiting for science to provide the nature of a proof? Ok.
2. Religionist do report personal experiences but they are legitimately discounted because they don’t act in conformity with their revealed truth and nothing they say about their experience is true. Prayer doesn’t work, they aren’t more honest, etc.
3. Homosexuals though report those impulses and act consistently by living with the same sex and/or hanging themselves after escaping from Christian Reform Camps. They indeed LIVE what they report.
4. You yourself know that science does not yet have good proof of that which you know. You love women. You have sex with them and live with them==just as gays do with their love objects. To deny them is to deny your own reality.
5. So–people reject what they shouldn’t for emotional reasons. In your case, its just not enough money? ((Joke!!!)). No, your parents or friends told you that when you were young, and it stuck. Thats all, very simple. But you are an adult now, so grow up.
>>you’ve wrapped stupidity in the
>>cloth of fine 5. reasoning.
“fine 5. reasoning.”???
You get more inscrutable by the day.
#176–Mustard==thanks, I wondered where that 5 went. How did it get up there?
“in the cloth of fine reasoning.”
Porridge again for breakfast?
>Porridge again for breakfast?
-==///More likely pork layered between tortillas and smothered with refried beans, salsa and cheese, topped with two poached eggs and sour cream.=-=-=/=
#174
I think we agree. The root cause of homosexual behavior in humans is entirely irrelevant to the discussion.
Note that there is no legislation that is being made here. Instead the Courts have declared that laws that qualify privileges based on sexual preference are unconstitutional based on California’s Constitution and the fundamental principles of equal treatment under the law.
#179–Thomas, Read post #39 carefully if you don’t understand what “legislating from the bench” means. It is criticism of a decision reached==not legislation as otherwise formally defined.
I assume you know this and are being manipulative. Some poor souls reading the end of this thread may not understand that.
>>It is criticism of a decision reached==not
>>legislation as otherwise formally defined.
Ah, so now we’re finally, after 180 posts, getting to the meat of the matter.
The Bobbonian definition of “legislating from the bench” is completely unrelated to what everyone else means when they say “legislating from the bench”.
You’re just pissed about the ruling.
In othe0r words, you’re a homophobe and the idea of gay marriage creeps you out.
Why is this the way things always seem to turn out with the anti-gay-marriage crowd?
#181–Mustard==if you would read #39 you would have a greater context for your pea brain to roll around in.
Bobbo, I think we have established, beyond the shadow of doubt, that you’re a homophobe and the idea of gay marriage creeps you out.
Time to give it up, son.
#180
I have read #39 and am not trying to be manipulative. This is not legislating from the bench. The Court shot down existing legislation that used invalid justification for qualifying benefits and privileges. There is no new legislation here.