BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Peace
Date: 29 Apr 09 - 07:42 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 29 Apr 09 - 08:15 PM

Yes, Bruce, you can come too....


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Peace
Date: 29 Apr 09 - 08:17 PM

I was gonna ask if I could be the bartender.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 29 Apr 09 - 08:18 PM

Telepathy!! Just like I pictured it!!



A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Apr 09 - 08:55 PM

Lovely. And I can provide the musical entertainment, while we station Chongo at the door to handle security. ;-D

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 30 Apr 09 - 01:42 AM

The real issue is whether a civil status should be extended equally to all individuals, or reserved for a subgroup.

That is indeed the issue Amos. How many subgroups can you think of at the moment who dont have equal "civil status"... excluding homosexuals?
Would you think it beneficial for all to have equal rights?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 30 Apr 09 - 05:16 AM

Generall, yes, but what kind of rights and what individuals do you have in mind?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 30 Apr 09 - 11:04 AM

I meant to post this the other day but got busy and then forgot.

On Monday when the first licenses were issued one of the local TV stations (from Davenport) had a story about the protest, even sent a reporter out to cover it. Turned out the protest was one guy standing on the corner holding a sign with some bible verses written on it. He was disappointed that more people had not shown up. The weather was fine so that didn't keep anybody away.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 30 Apr 09 - 11:27 AM

"How many subgroups can you think of at the moment who dont have equal "civil status"... excluding homosexuals?"

I can't think of any. Which is a wonderful illustration of how far we have come in ensuring equal rights. They are now granted to everyone ... excluding homosexuals of course.

I think it would be silly to argue that being the last remaining group to be discriminated against means that when that final discrimination is removed, that group is being granted "special rights".

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 30 Apr 09 - 11:42 AM

Hmmm, Well I guess that settles that, as far as sophistry. So:....

All those who were from a broken home, raise your hand.......
OK...
All those who were raised in a home by both your natural parents raise your hand.....
OK
All those who had happiness as a child, being raised by mommy and daddy, raise your hand....
OK
All those who, have grown up, and since being sexually active, was part of conceiving (either side), a child raise your hand....
OK.......
All those who got married, and had children, raise your hand.....
OK
All those, who for whatever reason, broke up, with your partner parent, raise your hand....
OK
All those who have made excuses through the years about whose fault it either was, or minimized your role in bringing that break-up about, raise your hand......
OK
All those who were the child of a broken home, raise your hand...
OK
All those who got married, more than one time, or married someone who came from multiple past marriages, raise your hand....
OK
All those who were raise by in a family, in which you matured, in a way, that you wanted to continue the love as a point of reference, that families are made up from, including being a child of the original parents, raise your hand....
OK
All those who believe that homosexuality, is the same thing as the family you were raised in, raise your hand.....
OK
All those who were raised by homosexuals, raise your hand......
Hmmm, not too many, but, OK
All those are alive, experiencing whatever, and where ever, life has had in store for you, where your parents conceiving you, and nurturing you, including birth, are the offspring of homosexuals, raise your hand...
OK
All those who think that homosexual 'marriages' are the same thing, that brought you into the world, as what brought you into the world, raise your hand.....
OK
All those who think that those in heterosexual marriages, bearing children, and nurturing them may see homosexual marriages, as a threat, to a society, made up of people like themselves, raise your hand.....
OK
All those who may want to re-think that marriage, between a man and a woman, is the same thing as a sexual 'convenience' living arrangement, raise your hand.......
OK
All those who think changing the meaning of words, change, the substance, raise your hand....
OK
Just checking......

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 Apr 09 - 12:33 PM

Yeah, GfS...everyone's in a unique spot, aren't they?

The important thing in any discussion is that those participating actually take the time to listen seriously to what the others are saying and understand it. That requires patience and attention. It also requires shutting down your own internal monologue briefly and being receptive, rather than just having your mind fixed on the very next thing YOU are going to say when that other person finishes talking! ;-)

If people manage to do the above things, they will usually discover that the other people are neither stupid nor crazy, and that they have some quite good reasons behind what they are saying. And maybe....some common ground can be found at that point.

Think how many wars and quarrels could have been avoided if people did this...

We don't all have to like the same things in order to live in the same world together harmoniously.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: frogprince
Date: 30 Apr 09 - 01:12 PM

I don't see that anyone would really find your "raise your hand" list objectionable, Gfs, although different individuals could recite some of the catagories with the intention of implying different things. But let's add a couple:

How many of you were raised by your natural parents, who in one way or another made it difficult or impossible for you to mature into a happy functional adult?

How many of you were raised by adults other than your natural parents, who taught you to respect them, yourself, and others around you, whether or not those others were of similar background or beliefs?

I'm sure we could come up with a few more variations.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 30 Apr 09 - 01:42 PM

You are some sort of control freak, aren't you?? Your senseless string of "raise your hand, Simon Says" listed above makes no point, and seems to have no bearing, as well as verging on the incomprehensible.

Whatever it was you were just checking can probably be handled by using Windex on your glasses. What point are you trying to make, exactly?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 30 Apr 09 - 04:09 PM

In my most recent long post above, I mentioned that the church that adopted, along with an increasing number of main-line Christian churches, the "Affirmation of Welcome" (which I quoted) have married at least four same-sex couples so far. Perhaps more, but these are the ones I am aware of.

One of the couples, married some years ago, I describe in this post, above:    CLICKY.   They adopted two boys from a Chinese orphanage, and these two lads are thriving. The oldest is one of the church's acolytes. And as I mentioned in the post cited, the two boys are leading far better lives now than they could have looked forward to had they been left in the Chinese orphanage.

Another same-sex couple married in the church are taking another route to becoming parents. Wanting biological children of their own, they found a woman (a friend) who is willing to act as a surrogate mother (this is not as rare as you might think). She has already born one child, fathered (in vitro fertilization) by "Jim," one of the men. Their first-born is now a lively and alert toddler. She is currently pregnant by "Rick" (also in vitro), and the ultrasound shows that she is going to deliver triplets! "Jim" and "Rick" are just a bit stunned. But ecstatic. By the way, they, like the men who adopted the two boys from a Chinese orpanage, are prominent attorneys in the area, and one of them is quite active in local politics.

Let me parse the relationship between the children of "Jim" and "Rick" for those who are easily bewildered:   The triplets, fathered by "Rick," will be full brothers and/or sisters (I don't know if their genders are known yet—we're still absorbing the fact that they are triplets). The firstborn, fathered by "Jim" will be a half-brother. Same mother, different father.

No sweat. Nothing really unusual about that.

With both of these couples, they are "out of the closet." They have a wide range of friends. Their own families (mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, etc.) are perfectly accepting of their life style, as are most people who know them. The other married couples (heterosexual) in their church regard them as just two more married couples—with children.

By the way, as far as this church is concerned, the proportion of "gays" and "straights" in the congregation reflect the proportion of the local population at large, so demographically, there is little difference between this church and most other main-line churches—save for the fact that the congregation consists largely of young married urban professionals. It is not a "gay church."

This is a microcosm that demonstrates how mellow things could be, were it not for those unhappy souls who get all bent out of shape over someone else's life style (which, of course, is none of their business) and want to limit the civil rights of those whose lifestyles they disapprove of.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 30 Apr 09 - 04:11 PM

Tia....You need to get out more!

There are many sub groups which do not have equal "human rights"
The two I cited earlier were those with addictions and those with psychiatric problems.
To these I can also add another sub group grandparents over 55 who were deemed too old to foster their own grandchildren, the children then being handed over to two male homosexuals as foster parents.

The two former are of course refused the "right" to foster because their behaviour/ condition could prove dangerous, if the health statistics for the practice of homosexuality are studied, it will be found that the practice is at least as dangerous as drug addiction, citing poor life expectancy and high risk of psychiatric and physical health problems.

So once again I say that "human rights" are not universal, but conditional on our behaviour.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 30 Apr 09 - 05:07 PM

"So once again I say that "human rights" are not universal, but conditional on our behaviour."

No quarrel with that, Ake. It would be irresponsible for an agency to place a child in a foster home with a drug addict or person with psychiatric problems, and possible with an elderly couple who, no matter how well-intentioned, might be too infirm to properly care for a child.

One must consider the rights of the child, which include the right to be raised in a safe and nurturing home.

But—

". . . if the health statistics for the practice of homosexuality are studied, it will be found that the practice is at least as dangerous as drug addiction, citing poor life expectancy and high risk of psychiatric and physical health problems."

Not true for the kind of stable relationships that legalizing same-sex marriage would (and does) encourage. It is promiscuity, whether among gays or straights, that accounts for the health risks you speak of.

And if you want psychiatric problems, let me introduce you to a woman I am acquainted with who was lesbian for most of her life, until "cured." She used to be fairly happy-go-lucky, but after her "cure," she is one of the most chronically angry and unhappy people I've ever met. But, by God, she's not a lesbian any more! She'll beat the crap out of you if you suggest otherwise. She's very sensitive about the matter (a little denial at work, perhaps?).

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 30 Apr 09 - 05:17 PM

Homosexual "marriage" would not guarantee a drop in the very high levels of promiscuity among homosexuals, especially if most considered it a device to aid "normalisation"

There is also the unexplained link to aids/hiv to be considered.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 30 Apr 09 - 05:30 PM

"those with addictions and those with psychiatric problems"... are not legally prevented from marrying!!!!!!!!





PS
I'm "out" right now :)

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 30 Apr 09 - 05:33 PM

BTW, has heterosexual marriage guaranteed a drop in the very high levels of promiscuity among heterosexuals?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 30 Apr 09 - 07:10 PM

TIA, Back a while ago, you said you we not going to be reading this post, any longer, to which I replied a single word, "Liar"..Now that you proved me right, what are you going to post, that can be considered the truth?...or that we can count on, that you know what your talking about?    (Just wondering)

All those that got pissed off, at the answer you instantly knew, during a 'poll', are getting mad at a question, ...raise your hand
OK
All those who know inside their heart of hearts, what the truth is, and that's why they got mad, ..raise your hand
OK
All those who just raised their hands, stop bullshitting yourselves and other people....
OKAY????
...........to be continued....

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: frogprince
Date: 30 Apr 09 - 07:43 PM

Gfs, one question for you. I won't be able to see if you raise your hand, so let's make it yes or no, with futher developed answer optional as you choose:
Would you be happy to see your child or sibling marry a person who has a history of homosexuality, but has undergone corrective therapy?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 30 Apr 09 - 08:01 PM

GfS, your "survey" is spurious, proves nothing, and is a complete waste of bandwidth. Mad? What's to get mad at?

And Ake:

If there is a higher level of promiscuity among homosexuals, it is because there is no socially acceptable outlet—such as marriage—for homosexuals as there is for heterosexuals. With both homosexuals and heterosexuals, males tend to be more promiscuous than females. There are more stable relationships between lesbians than there are between gay men. Also, even in times past, two women living together roused no comment (no matter what they may have been up to behind closed doors) whereas two men living together, especially if they have been together for some time, almost invariable raises eyebrows.

The latter can actually descend into the asinine. For example, Jerry Falwell's hissy-fit about Bert and Ernie (for those who live in a cave, Bert and Ernie are two hand-puppets on Sesame Street) being bad role models for children because they not only live together, they sleep in the same bed. Not to mention his having a cow over the fact that Tinky Winky, who speaks with the voice of a little boy, sometimes carries a "purse" (on the Teletubbies show, it's referred to as Tinky Winky's "magic bag.).

I'm sure that if gay and lesbian couples could exercise the same right to publicly declare their relationship that heterosexual couples have (marriage), it would increase the number of stable relationships, and concomitantly greatly reduce promiscuity, thereby bringing about a substantial diminution in the transmission of HIV/AIDS among gays and heterosexuals. HIV/AIDS is not a "disease of homosexuals," as many promiscuous heterosexuals have discovered to their horror.

And the "link" to homosexuality is not "unexplained." HIV/AIDS is an equal opportunity disease.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 30 Apr 09 - 08:03 PM

Good question, frogprince!!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 30 Apr 09 - 09:27 PM

If anyone cares to read my previous posts, they will see that there is blatant misquoting and mischaracterization being perpetrated.

I do however find it flattering that someone would hang on my every word and write posts that are clearly pleas for me to return.

Yes, flattering, but also a little sad, and kinda creepy.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 30 Apr 09 - 11:36 PM

The notion that sexual orientation is a maladaptation on the same order as psyciatric illness or drug abuse is an a priori postulate with no grounds and a logical fallacy large enough to drop this whole thrad into.

Ake and GtS are both offering self-fulfilling postulates and using it as a rationalization for subdividing the world of willing adults into the eligible and the ineligible, not on the basis of their drug use, their mental or physical health, but on the basis of their gender orientation, something as abnormal as the wrong skin color.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 01 May 09 - 01:01 AM

as to TIA, you are consummately wrong in your 'assessment'. Still reading, huh?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 01 May 09 - 05:04 AM

Little Hawk:.."The important thing in any discussion is that those participating actually take the time to listen seriously to what the others are saying and understand it. That requires patience and attention. It also requires shutting down your own internal monologue briefly and being receptive, rather than just having your mind fixed on the very next thing YOU are going to say when that other person finishes talking! ;-)


frogprince asks:
"Would you be happy to see your child or sibling marry a person who has a history of homosexuality, but has undergone corrective therapy?"

frogprice,...(may I call you Mr. Frogprince?)
Being as I thought you, sincere, when you posted,...'..That is a soul searching question..", you, in posting that, actually touched me, so, I owe you one....Whether that is a loaded question or not, I'll answer you as comprehensively as should suffice to satisfy your curiosity. I mean that, in all sincerity, as well. Just to let you know, I gave it much thought, and this is as good as I could come up with. It may not be in exactly in the format, you requested, but I assure you, my position is honest, and should be absolutely clear..OK?

Though whether a person, hetero or homosexual, has had previous sexual 'activity' in their past, is not an issue, though in either case, experience, (perhaps even yours, among many peoples), has shown us that in valuing what we do with our bodies in that area, for any number of reasons, often, less is better, as not to de-sensitize one's motives and heart. It also lessens the regret, and sometimes heartaches, that accompany reckless deceptions people often 'bestow' upon each other.
Keeping your eyes open, objectively, for what you want, and what you want to give, in this life, keeps you focused on your priorities, including what you need to do, and who you wish to do it with, and be life's partner with.
When a man get's past his lusts, and/or imaginations, and a woman past her fears, or insecurities, and both get past their self absorptions, (to at least, actually 'meet' the other),and for the reason of giving their very lives to and for each other, make both commitments in their hearts, and to each other, with the full expectation that commitment will last, and be maintained for their entire lifetimes. They should bring both their masculinity, and femininity, to each other, to complete the full spectrum, and be as a whole, genuine unit.
When they have sex, may their orgasms be strong in a way, that besides the man merely giving her his bodily fluid, he may also even feel his life's force, entering into her, and may she soar among the stars, in love...and may he be exhausted, to the point of desiring nothing,(maybe except for air), and may she know, in her joy, that she brought him 'home'.
Should they conceive during one of those moments, that the child in her,(another 'marriage', of sorts), be loved, born, nurtured, and be made strong, loving life, and treating it with reverence, under the covering, of BOTH of their best, with the goal of making a path clear, to continue on, and making it easier, for the child, conceived, and raised by, and for love. Preferably, not putting obstacles, for him/her to overcome, and bringing and presenting him or her to maturity with a healthy, positive outlook in life, spiritually, physically, mentally, and emotionally.
When you see these folks, gray and silver frost upon their heads, walking, hand in hand, heads held high, with life's history, and warmth in their eyes, after all these years, of loving, caring, through, their victories, and tragedies, and never diminishing their love for each other, since the first met, well man....that turns me on!!!
That being said, any compromise from that, is in direct proportion to regret, disappointment, misfortune and sadness, as many of you know by now, that in we can exist.
Now, to me, that is just about the top rung of the human experience. From there, it's only steps down. Whether you compromise your personal disciplines, is your business. But why fart around? Go for the top..if you go for 10, and don't make it, you might hit an 8, but it's still better than aiming your goal at 3.
Why'd ya' ask?

Don Firth, I considered your post, (about artificial insemination, and this came to mind, something I think you'd enjoy, Aldus Huxley's 'Brave New World', and as a companion read, 'Plato's Republic'. Look's like it's going that way....

TAI, ..'The weak accuse others, of their own motives'

Amos,..Are you still confused if I'm male or female...actually truth has no gender, I'm only just words on your screen. Don't throw out your computer, though...(wink).

Akenaton, Homosexuality is not the 'cause' of societies dying...history tells us that it is a symptom, of one that already is...but then, history also tells us, that man never learns from history!!

Little Hawk, Yoho, Thank you for:
"The important thing in any discussion is that those participating actually take the time to listen seriously to what the others are saying and understand it. That requires patience and attention. It also requires shutting down your own internal monologue briefly and being receptive, rather than just having your mind fixed on the very next thing YOU are going to say when that other person finishes talking! ;-)

Everyone should have equal rights, as CITIZENS, not because of who you, or what you have sex with......besides, less than the real thing, is bullshit!
Warmest Regards and Love to Everyone.
GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 01 May 09 - 05:47 AM

Don....If AIDS/HIV is an "equal opportunity disease", would you please explain why, in every country where AIDS was diagnosed it first showed up amongst the homosexual community?

Of course AIDS/HIV can be successfully transmitted by heterosexual intercourse, but it has never been explained why it has always been first diagnosed among practicing homosexuals.

The fact that the homosexual community is such a small part of society at large makes this even more strange.
Latest figures still show homosexuals as the largest group suffering from Aids in real percentage terms.

It is a "cop out" to suggest that Aids is simply a product of "promiscuity", as the figures state a definite link to homosexual practice.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 01 May 09 - 06:14 AM

Amos...I am not prepared to accept that Homosexual practice is genetic in origin, when there is absolutely no science to support that proposal.

If the causes of homosexuality are not genetic, then it stands to reason that it must be either "learned behaviour", a symptom of psychiatric imbalance, or other exterior causes.

Still enjoying your posts GfS!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 01 May 09 - 08:31 AM

Qwll, I suggest you look back at some of the links posted earlier, Ake. This is about the third time you have used that "absolutely no evidence" line. Very noble and business like, that. But it only works if you ignore the evidence that is there.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: frogprince
Date: 01 May 09 - 10:54 AM

Gfs, I'd say you have done something rather remarkable here, in that I think you've clearly and vividly pictured a very high ideal for monogamous love and family life, and done so for the most part with an almost incredible lack of dicernible sentence structure. : )
The great majority of people around us are heterosexuals for whom that ideal is completely applicable. If it was typical for people today to be ingrained with that high an ideal, we would all be immeasurably better off. A lot of your ideal is also applicable to anyone raising or caring for children who aren't their's by birth. At the same time you seem to grasp the importance of holding an ideal without crucifying fallible mortals over their inability to live up to it perfectly. All this I have to respect.

A couple whom my wife has known since college were recently parted by the death of one. They had been inseparable for close to 40 years, each seeing the other through significant health problems,
job loss situations, et al. I knew one somewhat more than the other,
and know that faith was very basic to her; it may have been just as much so for the other. Anyhow, I considered both of them to be good women.

Incidentally, I read and reread you reply, and haven't been able to sort out a discernible answer to the question : )

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: frogprince
Date: 01 May 09 - 10:55 AM

...your reply...

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 01 May 09 - 11:08 AM

GfS:

Your description is really beautiful.

I do not actually believe that the intensity or beauty of a same-sex relationship is muchless, though. I have no personal experience on which to base that judgment, being one of those frost-headfed heteros you describe. But its not my judgment to make, but that of the participants in it. That's a brand of freedom that should be left to the individual.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 01 May 09 - 11:50 AM

An interesting recent survey on the numbers relating to homophobic bullying in school-age children, and the sometimes lethal results thereof.


A quote therefrom:

"(...(S)ubstantially more black adults see homosexuality as morally degenerate than whites. According to Gallup Polls 65 percent of blacks view homosexuality as morally unacceptable compared to just 48% of whites. The Hispanic numbers on this measure are comparable to whites.

"I say, seeking to diminish the human dignity of another whose only crime is not loving whom you would have him or her love is immoral and an offense to the indomitable determination of the heart.)"

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 01 May 09 - 12:13 PM

Amos...what the hell has this discussion got to do with "skin colour"?
It is perfectly normal for different races to have different coloured skins,to marry and to reproduce interacially with no harmful side effects.

Your message attempting to equate my argument with colour prejudice is astonishing!
People with "colour prejudice" practice a crude form of racial hatred, whereas I hate neither homosexuals nor folks of different race, I am simply trying to make the case against homosexual "marriage" in plain language and in sincerity.

You may not like it Amos, but I believe what I write and I would appreciate it if you would stop misrepresenting my position.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 01 May 09 - 12:34 PM

There is no genetic difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals.....fact.

From the editor of The Lancet

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 01 May 09 - 12:37 PM

Dear Ake:


The issue is this: a civil status has been defined on exclusionary grounds. The exclusion is based on something you define as bad behavior, and therefore find perfectly acceptable. According to the scientific information, however, there is strong evidence that this exclusion is not in fact based on behavior, but is based on a condition which is partially genetic and partially cultural, rather than an actual choice.

It is of course true that deciding to be as one is instead of act differently in order to cling to a normative profile is a choice, but I think you will agree that forcing people to denytheir own natures is probably not a good implementation of "freedom under law".

Furthermore I see no hard evidence to support your assertion that being homosexual, or living with another homosexual person in a committed relationship, is "destructive".

It was argued, long ago and in a different context, that people of color should accept their place in society, and that if they did not, they, too, were acting destructiuvely by upsetting the status quo.

You have made the same argument about a different group of legally excluded citizens, but instead of basing it on color or race, you base it on their sexual orientation.

You persist in doing this in spite of the fact that there is no identifiable possible way that the marriage of two people of the same gender could have a negative effect on you, accept by reason of your own attitude only.

Thus, the parallel between your attitudes toward "them" and the earlier attitudes of racially-motivated prejudicially minded vociferous citizens is, to my view, particularly apt.

In both cases an argument is made to exclude a group of citizens from certain civil rights because of a condition which in fact is an innate part of their nature andf is in fact not harmful to others in and of itself.

That's what the one has to do with the other. Thanks for asking.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 May 09 - 01:38 PM

Amos, my friend, I don't believe that you are making any real effort to understand what Akenaton's concerns are, because you are so busy stating and defending a specific political ideal (and a good one, by the way) that it is preventing you from looking at what he is actually concerned about. He is not in disagreement with the political ideal per se, he is concerned about other matters entirely.

So you are talking at cross purposes, to no useful effect.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 01 May 09 - 01:52 PM

Ake:

The essay you cite is from 1995.


There is a body of evidence since then you should become familiar with.


Please excuse me if I have not understood thepoint you aremaking. Perhaps you could spell it out for me in declarative simple sentences, as I am a little jaded.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: frogprince
Date: 01 May 09 - 02:02 PM

I waded through the last article that Ake linked. I frankly found it heavy going, but my impression was that it was an honest effort to look objectively at the very complex subject. What I'm getting, Ake, is that you've come to one of the very polarities of simplistic conclusion that the article is warning against.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: frogprince
Date: 01 May 09 - 02:08 PM

And I failed to note the date of the article, but it remains that it did not claim that "There is no genetic difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals.....fact."

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 01 May 09 - 02:22 PM

If there was a difference frogprince, I can assure you it would have been plastered all over this thread by Don Firth and Amos.

I have stated a dozen times on this thread what my position is, however it is obviously in the interests of Don and Amos's arguments to misrepresent mine!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 May 09 - 03:17 PM

I think it's more like...they don't get your point, Akenation, because their minds are already completely occupied with making their own point. ;-) This is the reason why most arguments between human beings simply go on and on with no resolution. (or no achievement of mutual understanding might be a better way of putting it...resolution is not particulary required, I don't think, just mutual understanding)

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 01 May 09 - 03:21 PM

What Makes People Gay?? (a survey article).

" in 1991, a neuroscientist in San Diego named Simon LeVay told the world he had found a key difference between the brains of homosexual and heterosexual men he studied. LeVay showed that a tiny clump of neurons of the anterior hypothalamus - which is believed to control sexual behavior - was, on average, more than twice the size in heterosexual men as in homosexual men. LeVay's findings did not speak directly to the nature-vs.-nurture debate - the clumps could, theoretically, have changed size because of homosexual behavior. But that seemed unlikely, and the study ended up jump-starting the effort to prove a biological basis for homosexuality.

Later that same year, Boston University psychiatrist Richard Pillard and Northwestern University psychologist J. Michael Bailey announced the results of their study of male twins. They found that, in identical twins, if one twin was gay, the other had about a 50 percent chance of also being gay. For fraternal twins, the rate was about 20 percent. Because identical twins share their entire genetic makeup while fraternal twins share about half, genes were believed to explain the difference. Most reputable studies find the rate of homosexuality in the general population to be 2 to 4 percent, rather than the popular "1 in 10" estimate.

In 1993 came the biggest news: Dean Hamer's discovery of the "gay gene." In fact, Hamer, a Harvard-trained researcher at the National Cancer Institute, hadn't quite put it that boldly or imprecisely. He found that gay brothers shared a specific region of the X chromosome, called Xq28, at a higher rate than gay men shared with their straight brothers. Hamer and others suggested this finding would eventually transform our understanding of sexual orientation.

That hasn't happened yet. But the clear focus of sexual-orientation research has shifted to biological causes, and there hasn't been much science produced to support the old theories tying homosexuality to upbringing. Freud may have been seeing the effect rather than the cause, since a father faced with a very feminine son might well become more distant or hostile, leading the boy's mother to become more protective. In recent years, researchers who suspect that homosexuality is inborn - whether because of genetics or events happening in the womb - have looked everywhere for clues: Prenatal hormones. Birth order. Finger length. Fingerprints. Stress. Sweat. Eye blinks. Spatial relations. Hearing. Handedness. Even "gay" sheep.

LeVay, who is gay, says that when he published his study 14 years ago, some gays and lesbians criticized him for doing research that might lead to homosexuality once again being lumped in with diseases and disorders. "If anything, the reverse has happened," says LeVay, who is now 61 and no longer active in the lab. He says the hunt for a biological basis for homosexuality, which involves many researchers who are themselves gay or lesbian, "has contributed to the status of gay people in society."

These studies have been small and underfunded, and the results have often been modest. Still, because there's been so much of this disparate research, "all sort of pointing in the same direction, makes it pretty clear there are biological processes significantly influencing sexual orientation," says LeVay. "But it's also kind of frustrating that it's still a bunch of hints, that nothing is really as crystal clear as you would like."

Just in the last few months, though, the hints have grown stronger.

In May, Swedish researchers reported finding important differences in how the brains of straight men and gay men responded to two compounds suspected of being pheromones - those scent-related chemicals that are key to sexual arousal in animals. The first compound came from women's urine, the second from male sweat. Brain scans showed that when straight men smelled the female urine compound, their hypothalamus lit up. That didn't happen with gay men. Instead, their hypothalamus lit up when they smelled the male-sweat compound, which was the same way straight women had responded. This research once again connecting the hypothalamus to sexual orientation comes on the heels of work with sheep. About 8 percent of domestic rams are exclusively interested in sex with other rams. Researchers found that a clump of neurons similar to the one LeVay identified in human brains was also smaller in gay rams than straight ones. (Again, it's conceivable that these differences could be showing effect rather than cause.)

In June, scientists in Vienna announced that they had isolated a master genetic switch for sexual orientation in the fruit fly. Once they flicked the switch, the genetically altered female flies rebuffed overtures from males and instead attempted to mate with other females, adopting the elaborate courting dance and mating songs that males use.

And now, a large-scale, five-year genetic study of gay brothers is underway in North America. The study received $2.5 million from the National Institutes of Health, which is unusual. Government funders tend to steer clear of sexual orientation research, aware that even small grants are apt to be met with outrage from conservative congressmen looking to make the most of their C-Span face time. Relying on a robust sample of 1,000 gay-brother pairs and the latest advancements in genetic screening, this study promises to bring some clarity to the murky area of what role genes may play in homosexuality.

This accumulating biological evidence, combined with the prospect of more on the horizon, is having an effect. Last month, the Rev. Rob Schenck, a prominent Washington, D.C., evangelical leader, told a large gathering of young evangelicals that he believes homosexuality is not a choice but rather a predisposition, something "deeply rooted" in people. Schenck told me that his conversion came about after he'd spoken extensively with genetic researchers and psychologists. He argues that evangelicals should continue to oppose homosexual behavior, but that "many evangelicals are living in a sort of state of denial about the advance of this conversation." His message: "If it's inevitable that this scientific evidence is coming, we have to be prepared with a loving response. If we don't have one, we won't have any credibility."..."

The bottom line is that there is strong evidence for a genetic component, despite nay-saying and bully-rag nabobbery to the contrary. There is also evidence of other vectors and the probability is that predisposition, precipitation and prolongation of the condition varies from case to case based on multiple ingredients.

It is just disingenuous to argue that NO genetic or NO non-genetic elements are in play.

Not to mention discompassionate in extremis.



A1

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 01 May 09 - 03:39 PM

It is obvious from his first post that Amos wished to make a political point by starting this thread....."Liberal"v Right Wing the issue of "rights" only incidental.

As the thread has gone on, the real issue of "rights" has slowly been brought to the fore.
If the thread has caused those who simply read but don't contribute to the debate to think a little more deeply about human rights and how they are apportioned, then I am well pleased.
There can never be any winners and losers in a discussion like this, the object is to increase understanding in all who follow the arguments.
Amazing how Little Hawk's devastating post on the "Witch hunt mentality" was vindicated only a few posts later by a concerted attack by opposers of free speech

At the end of the day, if "marriage" is to be redefined in the image of one minority, then it must be redefined in the image of any form of relationship that human beings demand....to refuse entry to the "marriage club" would be sheer hypocrisy.
Group marriage, incestuous marriage...the sky's the limit

I don't think for one moment that the majority of homosexuals want all the furore of the marriage issue, they are being manipulated as political pawns by their bown fundamentalists and people not unlike Amos.... all over the Western world.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 01 May 09 - 03:51 PM

Amos you posted that before...and GFS and I dealt with it before.

If homosexuality was linked to genes, the genetic differences would be huge and obvious.....you and your accomplices would not need to rush around looking for a needle in a haystack!!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 01 May 09 - 03:53 PM

Sheeshe, Ake. There is only one political point to this thread, as far as I am concerned. That is the core issue of the civil status being denied a particular group on spurious and prejudicial grounds.

We learn slowly, and often we redefine as we learn. I remind you the word citizen at one time was denied some minorities (due to race or inadequate wealth). At another time a subset of humans was denied the right to marriage or sex because of their economic status. At another, the act of love between two humans was constrained if one was the wrong color.

We are about honoring individual freedom to choose, Ake, not about living up to imaginary norms imposed by authorities. Maybe we differ in this, but that is what I believe we are about.

To the degree we do not learn to honor individual freedom to choose, weare steering in the wrong direction.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 01 May 09 - 05:04 PM

I have read both Plato's "Republic," and Huxley's "Brave New World," GfS, and likening what I described to the society Huxley postulated is reaching for it. How do you feel about a childless heterosexual couple who does the same sort of thing?

I know of such a couple who were both fertile, but the woman was unable, due to a physical abnormality, to carry to term. So an egg harvested from the woman was fertilized in vitro, then implanted in the uterus of a woman who volunteered to be a surrogate mother (for a fee, incidentally). Essentially the same procedure as I described above (except that the woman did not charge them a fee).

Is there anything "Huxleyan" about this? Or is that only if it's done by same sex couples?

These days fertility clinics can offer a number of options that one could characterize as Huxleyan. But that doesn't really mean that society is going to collapse.

####

And Ake, you seem to imply that HIV/AIDS was invented by homosexual men.

". . . would you please explain why, in every country where AIDS was diagnosed it first showed up amongst the homosexual community?"

Simple, Ake. It's not true.

The history of HIV/AIDS:   CLICKY.   Although I'm quite sure you will blow this off because it disagrees with what you want to believe.

Transmission of HIV virus (I would consider the Center for Disease Control a fairly reliable and unbiased source of information, wouldn't you?).

Other CDC data:

Males accounted for 74% of the population living with HIV. The largest population living with HIV (45%) comprised men who have sex with men (MSM), followed by persons infected through high-risk heterosexual contact (27%), those infected through injection drug use (22%), and those who were exposed through both male-to-male sexual contact and injection drug use (5%).

Still more HERE

Although immunodeficiency diseases of one sort or another have been around for as long as humans have, the HIV/AIDS was first identified in the United States in 1981 in a small group of homosexual males. Saying that this is a "gay disease" is a bit like blaming polio on children who like to swim because the first cases identified in the polio epidemic in the summer 1916 were kids who contracted the virus while swimming at public beaches (when I contracted polio at the age of 2, I hadn't been anywhere near a swimming beach, or other children who had).

No, the association is simply a matter of happenstance, and is used as a handy weapon against gays.

And Little Hawk—have you ever taken a strong stance on a moral or ethical issue, or is "colorless neutrality" your permanent posture on everything? Ever read the statement made by Pastor Martin Niemoller back in the 1930s? If not, look it up and read it. If you have, read it again.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 01 May 09 - 05:36 PM

Little Hawk, Amos and I most certainly do get the point, and part of that point is that Ake is dodging the issue. We have said that, to a degree, the science is not complete, but so far, there are indications 1) that there may be a genetic component in determining gender orientation; and/or, 2) there are occasionally imbalances in the infusion of hormones at a crucial time in the development of the fetus which determines gender orientation. And that this orientation often manifests itself at an early age, long before puberty and long before a child knows anything about sex at all.

There are case studies up the ziggy on this. And both Ake and GfS are studiously avoiding this evidence and making the flat statement that gender orientation is a matter of conscious, well-considered, and deliberate choice.

Phooey!!!

If you're going to commment, try reading a bit more carefully first.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 May 09 - 05:56 PM

Don, you consistently misunderstand me.

My stand is this: I have NO objection whatsoever to gay couples getting married if they wish to, and I have no objection to them being legally allowed to do so. No objection. They have my blessing.

Got that????????????????????????

Please tell me you do.

Now, I am also concerned about some of the points that Akenaton and others have raised, quite apart from that, and I agree with some of their concerns. I am concerned about how the mass media and certain people who have what amounts to an obsession about this particular issue have arranged for it to occupy such an oversized piece of everyone's attention for a decade or so now.

I think it's way out of balance, I think it's a tempest in a teapot, I think it's a political ploy by certain special interests for their own (political) gain, and I think there are people on BOTH sides of this debate who are likewise out of balance over the whole thing and are using it as a political ploy, and THAT is why I favour some statements and disagree with some statements on BOTH sides of the fucking debate!!!!!!!!!!!!

Can you understand that or it is too inconceivable to you that a human being doesn't HAVE to be 100% totally partisan on one or the other side of two sets of arguing people?

It isn't just a case of Black/White, Good/Evil, All-wrong/All-right in this world, Don. There are shades of gray in most situations. There are fools, fanatics, demagogues, and highly prejudiced people carryin on on BOTH sides of most highly charged debates in this world, and they are the people who fuck things up for most of the rest of us by their mutual intolerance for one another and their determination to dominate the airwaves and persecute US with their particular obsession, whatever it is.

I DO take a stand, Don. I take a stand for fairness, even-handedness, moderation, tolerance, and willingness to listen to other people rather than just bleating some politically correct slogan at them and mentally patting yourself on the back while you do it for being such a terrifically great and moral guy, and that's what I see a lot of people doing here a great deal of the time. They are eager to find someone else to judge and condemn, someone else to label as "bigot" or "racist" or "pro-homo", but they have precious little interest in understanding what the other person is attempting to say...or why. I object to THAT.

Do you understand me NOW? If not, I must assume you have never even tried to. I get so fed up with this endless bullshit from you about my supposed "colourless neutrality"...Christ! I can hardly believe it each time you say it.