Alaska Darin Posted November 17, 2004 Posted November 17, 2004 You could argue that it is in males, as many say that men are biologically/genetically configured to 'spread the seed' around as much as possible. Hence why marriage became so important. It acted as a civilizing influence on men while at the same time they could rest assured that the children his wife was having were his. Funny, when people argue that poor 'homosexuals' are born that way and can't help it, you could counter argue that men are born promiscuous but have repressed said promiscouity for the benefit of civilization (but of course, many fail at repressing it but then again they aren't out for special rights on it either). 121933[/snapback] Maybe if they gave us a tax break... I'm not sure if we've repressed it for the good of society or if nature has cycled it back because of the huge increase in population. Plus, there's alot on television.
Gavin in Va Beach Posted November 17, 2004 Posted November 17, 2004 Plus, there's alot on television. 121940[/snapback] Indeed. Years from now when scientists wonder why population levels started to drop dramitically around this time, they'll trace it back to 'Lost' and 'Desperate Housewives'. We have a few individuals from this board they could use as case studies...
MichFan Posted November 17, 2004 Posted November 17, 2004 Federal law always has jurisdiction over state and local law. That IS in the Constitution. Federal law requires that gays can not be discriminated against. How are gays being discriminated against? They have every right to marry a member of the opposite sex as any other person does. We are not here saying that gays should be denied the right to free speech, own guns, assemble, vote, etc... Those are the protections safeguarded by the federal government and they apply regardless of sexual preference. The federal government to date has left the issue of marriage and civil unions to the states. Nothing in the federal laws states that gays have the right to marry. Your making a very convoluted argument here.
Alaska Darin Posted November 17, 2004 Posted November 17, 2004 How are gays being discriminated against? They have every right to marry a member of the opposite sex as any other person does. We are not here saying that gays should be denied the right to free speech, own guns, assemble, vote, etc... Those are the protections safeguarded by the federal government and they apply regardless of sexual preference. The federal government to date has left the issue of marriage and civil unions to the states. Nothing in the federal laws states that gays have the right to marry. Your making a very convoluted argument here. 122039[/snapback] And yet here we are debating a Constitutional Amendment.
ofiba Posted November 17, 2004 Posted November 17, 2004 Really? That's not what I've read. 121917[/snapback] AD, could you show me what you read that proves homosexuality is genetic? I don't believe there is any study that proves it. In fact, I have seen studies that show otherwise. I've seen a study that shows that a gay man's adopted brother is more likely to be gay than a blood brother. (this link explains it better- I am refering to the Bailey & Pillard: Twins and Other Brothers studyHomosexuality Study ) Wouldn't that prove otherwise? Also, the same study showed that a gay man's identical twin is only 50% likely to also be gay. Since twins share 100 percent of their genes, shouldn't that number also be 100%? Granted, this study alone does not necessarily prove or disprove anything, but it sure makes a good case for homosexuality not being in born. I would argue that it is more due to the environment in which they grew up and experiences in life, much like pedophiles.
MichFan Posted November 17, 2004 Posted November 17, 2004 And yet here we are debating a Constitutional Amendment. AD, you know this is a separate issue related to the behavior of activist courts. The Constitutional Amendment as written would actually reinforce the rights of the states to make laws regarding civil unions for gay couples. It would end the debate over what marriage is from a Federal perspective for purposes of closing any loopholes related to interstate commerce.
MichFan Posted November 17, 2004 Posted November 17, 2004 I would argue that it is more due to the environment in which they grew up and experiences in life, much like pedophiles. I agree. But if it turns out to be a genetic abnormality, and research provides a cure, should parents choose to fix the abnormality or not?
Alaska Darin Posted November 18, 2004 Posted November 18, 2004 AD, could you show me what you read that proves homosexuality is genetic? I don't believe there is any study that proves it. In fact, I have seen studies that show otherwise. I've seen a study that shows that a gay man's adopted brother is more likely to be gay than a blood brother. (this link explains it better- I am refering to the Bailey & Pillard: Twins and Other Brothers studyHomosexuality Study ) Wouldn't that prove otherwise? Also, the same study showed that a gay man's identical twin is only 50% likely to also be gay. Since twins share 100 percent of their genes, shouldn't that number also be 100%? Granted, this study alone does not necessarily prove or disprove anything, but it sure makes a good case for homosexuality not being in born. I would argue that it is more due to the environment in which they grew up and experiences in life, much like pedophiles. 122313[/snapback] What I have read basically states scientists don't KNOW the exact cause but theorize that genetics and related biology are at the root. I have no reason to disbelieve it. Plus, it satisfies (in a sensible way) my disgust for it. I've read pieces of the actual studies you've cited but have stayed away from the conservative/liberal websites that try to interpret the data to prove their own agenda. Science has come along way and obviously has further to go. There were some pretty big holes in the studies as well, but I'm sure you know that. On nature vs nurture: that's an interesting debate, but I've always felt that even pedophiles were probably predisposed to the behavior (nature) and eventually would have been triggered by something (nurture). I have no data to satisfy my hypothesis. It's just a gut thing. Along the way, I've learned there are few absolutes in this life - especially if it's convenient.
ofiba Posted November 18, 2004 Posted November 18, 2004 What I have read basically states scientists don't KNOW the exact cause but theorize that genetics and related biology are at the root. I have no reason to disbelieve it. Plus, it satisfies (in a sensible way) my disgust for it. I've read pieces of the actual studies you've cited but have stayed away from the conservative/liberal websites that try to interpret the data to prove their own agenda. Science has come along way and obviously has further to go. There were some pretty big holes in the studies as well, but I'm sure you know that. On nature vs nurture: that's an interesting debate, but I've always felt that even pedophiles were probably predisposed to the behavior (nature) and eventually would have been triggered by something (nurture). I have no data to satisfy my hypothesis. It's just a gut thing. Along the way, I've learned there are few absolutes in this life - especially if it's convenient. 122681[/snapback] I agree that the study I cited had its holes as well, like not being a random sample. If you think pedophiles are predisposed to their behavior like you think homosexuals are, do you think there should be equal rights for both, or just one? I not using my "slippery slope" argument, I am actually curious how you feel and why. For a guy that posts a lot, you seem to keep your opinions on issues to yourself and instead criticize others opinions.
Alaska Darin Posted November 18, 2004 Posted November 18, 2004 I agree that the study I cited had it's holes as well, like not being a random sample. If you think pedophiles are predisposed to their behavior like you think homosexuals are, do you think there should be equal rights for both, or just one? I not using my "slippery slope" argument, I am actually curious how you feel and why. For a guy that posts a lot, you seem to keep your opinions on issues to yourself and instead critisize others opinions. 123134[/snapback] I'm not really sure what you're asking me. What kind of "equal rights" are we talking about? On the opinion thing: That's YOUR opinion. I've posted MY opinion on a variety of subjects on this board. If you want something on a specific subject, ask the question. I'll answer it.
ofiba Posted November 18, 2004 Posted November 18, 2004 I'm not really sure what you're asking me. What kind of "equal rights" are we talking about? On the opinion thing: That's YOUR opinion. I've posted MY opinion on a variety of subjects on this board. If you want something on a specific subject, ask the question. I'll answer it. 123227[/snapback] I was asking if you think pedophiles and the object of their love (children) should or eventually allowed to get married as well since it seems to be on par with homosexuality. On the opinion, I guess I didn't have much basis for that other than the fact that you were in almost all the Presidential threads, but never seemed to voice who you would want as President, and always voiced who you DIDN'T think would be a good President. You may or may not have voiced that opinion and I apologize for making an assertment without a whole lot of reasoning behind it.
Campy Posted November 18, 2004 Posted November 18, 2004 <-SNIP-> I apologize for making an assertment without a whole lot of reasoning behind it.123245[/snapback] Dare I ask what exactly your reasoning is to justify the following statement? I was asking if you think pedophiles and the object of their love (children) should or eventually allowed to get married as well since it seems to be on par with homosexuality. 123245[/snapback]
Alaska Darin Posted November 18, 2004 Posted November 18, 2004 I was asking if you think pedophiles and the object of their love (children) should or eventually allowed to get married as well since it seems to be on par with homosexuality. 123245[/snapback] Are you being serious? Should adult pedophiles be allowed to marry children? I fail to see how that can be accurately compared to two adults who are legally capable of making decisions for themselves..
Johnny Coli Posted November 18, 2004 Posted November 18, 2004 Are you being serious? Should adult pedophiles be allowed to marry children? I fail to see how that can be accurately compared to two adults who are legally capable of making decisions for themselves.. 123303[/snapback] You would think that your reasoning, which I and it appears several others totally agree with and have posted countless times already in this thread, would be enough to end this "debate." But here it comes.....it's only a matter of minutes......cue the music....
ofiba Posted November 18, 2004 Posted November 18, 2004 Dare I ask what exactly your reasoning is to justify the following statement? 123283[/snapback] I was saying that based on what I though AD's beliefs were. He said that he though pedophiles were predisposed to that behavior and I also thought he felt homosexuals were too.
ofiba Posted November 18, 2004 Posted November 18, 2004 Are you being serious? Should adult pedophiles be allowed to marry children? I fail to see how that can be accurately compared to two adults who are legally capable of making decisions for themselves.. 123303[/snapback] The problem with that is the word legally. Laws can change. Just like the voting age can drop from 21 to 18, there is nothing that says that with changing society the age of consent can drop from 18 to maybe 16. My question is a hypothetical one. IF society somehow came to accept pedophilia and made the act legal, would you support them getting married since you already admitted you think they are born with a predisposition to pedophilia?
ofiba Posted November 18, 2004 Posted November 18, 2004 You would think that your reasoning, which I and it appears several others totally agree with and have posted countless times already in this thread, would be enough to end this "debate." But here it comes.....it's only a matter of minutes......cue the music.... 123350[/snapback] The consenting adult argument only works for pedophilia, not incest or polygamy.
Alaska Darin Posted November 18, 2004 Posted November 18, 2004 The consenting adult argument only works for pedophilia, not incest or polygamy. 123697[/snapback] I don't care about polygamy, either. Whoa to the man who thinks it's a good idea, though.
Kelly the Dog Posted November 18, 2004 Posted November 18, 2004 Are you being serious? Should adult pedophiles be allowed to marry children? I fail to see how that can be accurately compared to two adults who are legally capable of making decisions for themselves.. 123303[/snapback] Those wacky homosexuals, choosing disease again.
Simon Posted November 19, 2004 Posted November 19, 2004 I agree that the study I cited had its holes as well, like not being a random sample. Yeah that might be one. Or another might be that it's posted on a site which claims to be "A pro-people organization offering Christian support to men and women choosing to leave homosexuality, and equipping the church to minister effectively and compassionately." I'm sure there's no bias and that it must be pure science P.S. From the Council for Responsible Genetics: "The most frequently cited study was conducted by molecular biologists at the National Institutes of Health under the direction of Dean Hamer. This study is currently under investigation by the federal Office of Research Integrity for possible scientific misconduct, because one of the study collaborators alleges that Hamer suppressed data that would have reduced the statistical significance of the reported results. "But even more significant for Hamer’s studies is the definition of who is gay. Hamer uses the extremely conservative estimate of two percent for the prevalence of homosexuality among American men. Increasing this value to the usually accepted values of five to ten percent reduces or even eliminates the statistical significance of his results...........Hamer’s results remain controversial. An independent study of gay siblings did NOT reproduce his results, though the Hamer group now reports a second study which supports the role of a gene on the X chromosome in male homosexuality."
Recommended Posts