Mike Sam is out - Poiticlal implications

[D521646]

Benjamin, your post on Bailey and Pillard's twin studies was an honest one, thank you. Years back and to this day it is still being used on both sides to bash each other over the head with. As to the others who claim to have "found me out" on other forums, I say, post away, provided that you post in full context. I've never posted anything I'm ashamed of, and I am and have been consistent. My opinions have evolved over the years like many. For instance, years ago I was so anti-homosexual that any notion that we give gays special rights was absurd. Now, I am of the opinion that gays should be allowed to adopt, rear, and raise their own children, form civil unions. However, I am still against gay marriage, but not because gays shouldn’t be allowed to love each other and commit to one another, but because I don’t see the issue of gay marriage as a legal equality matter. Heterosexuals, albeit not all, but fair to say most of us contribute way more to the posterity of society than do homosexuals, and to me marriage is and always will be about children. For case history and a better understanding of my position on this subject please read the summary brief by the proponents of Prop 8, http://sblog.s3.amaz...ion-7-31-12.pdf

 

 

 

I see marriage as a social issue, and I am a firm believer that social issues shouldn’t be decided on by judges, where in a panel of 9 judges’ one side wins 5 – 4. You can take that, and extend it for any issue before the court. I’ve always thought, well how silly is that? The people decide something, turn it into law, and it gets overturned by one person effectively. I know it’s our system and it has worked, relatively speaking for 100’s of years, but matters that the people decide one way, and a single judge decides another way, piss me off. It effectively becomes legislation by the bench.

 

 

 

Turning back to the topic of causality. I am under no illusion that the topic of sexuality is an easy one. It is really complex, and involves a myriad of variables, and one model cannot ever fit all people. One thing you neglected to mention about the various twin studies is that studies where identical twins were adopted and raised separately saw percentages of both being gay as adults dwindle even more, although marginally. Anyone interested in understanding the problems associated with social behavioral psychology specifically looking at clones, or twins can read http://www.washingto...wins/twins1.htm] this write up by the Washington Post. It’s actually a really fair assessment, and underlying difficulties with research and parameters.

 

 

 

What further complicates the nature/nurture debate is what researchers and anthropologists are digging up in other species. Again though, what makes for a great headline in your local newspaper should be taken with a grain of salt. The irony, of course, is that those in the psych fields who are quick to suggest that there is no correlation from sex to sexuality and gender are also the ones trumpeting the astonishing frequency of homosexual pairings among the animal kingdom, yet I digress once again with a face palm.

 

 

 

Anyway, I’m actually at work, and will post this in Politics as it does contain some politically sensitive information and belong more there than in this thread in TSW.

 

 

 

Regards,

 

 

 

Tim-