Homosexuality & Same-Sex Marriage

[SkinWalker]

Yes. But there is no logical and reasoned excuse to continue to disallow same-sex marriage, which comes from a more basic human expectation: the right to marry the person they are in love with and to get all the unique rights and benefits that they are currently discriminated from having.

 

There is no logical reason for the continued discrimination. To date, all have been dismissed as fallacious or superstitious.

[Spider AL]

Everyone? I've only seen it cited a few times in various discussions.

Oh gosh no, activists of various shades dish it out all the time. And the media still refers indirectly to it on a regular basis.

 

I must point out once again that MANY times in this thread I've stated that I believe that there probably ARE biological factors involved in determining our sexual proclivities in adulthood. But one has to point out any evidence to the contrary, because- certainly in my country's media- the activists pop up every five minutes claiming that homosexuality is 100% biologically determined. Which is a point of view clearly not supported by any evidence at ALL, not even their OWN evidence. The reverse point of view doesn't get any airtime at all.

 

I notice, however, that others are quick to cite Rice et al as if this study completely refutes Hamer. It doesn't.

Its results caused Rice et al to declare Hamer's results unreplicated. They didn't reproduce his frankly abberant 82% result. Even Hu et al. didn't reproduce results in the eighties, and Hu et al. was conducted by Hamer's own group.

 

Rice et al demonstrated that by using a slightly different methodology, Hamer's results couldn't be duplicated. Rice et al studied a slightly different population and had 3 or 4 other methodological differences from Hamer and a few other studies.

As I recall, any changes Rice et al. made to the methodology were changes that they stated would make the research more unbiased. Hamer made a lot of noise following Rice's results, criticising their methodology, but having read both his statement and Rice's rebuttal it seems more like sour grapes and minor quibbling than genuine concerns to me.

 

When the above four studies are meta-analyzed, Rice et al included, the results are that 64% of gay brothers share the xq28 allele.

But as Rice pointed out in his rebuttal, when the studies from Hamer's group are grouped together, and the two independent studies are grouped together, one gets:

 

Independent studies (Rice et al. & Sanders et al.): 56% allelle sharing

Hamer's lab's studies (Hamer et al. & Hu et al.): 74.5% allele sharing

 

A rather stark difference, and suggestive in and of itself.

 

There are some other studies, that are more recent that are suggest much the same, that homosexuality is not a conscious choice and probably prenatal if not genetic.

As far as I'm aware, the more recent genetic analysis suggesting some minor link between genetics and homosexual tendencies... have also not had their results duplicated.

 

A recent study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences demonstrated that the number of biological older brothers increases the probability of homosexuality in men. According to the study's author (Bogaert 2006) it suggests that prenatal mechanisms are at work rather than social ones in deciding sexual orientation.

A truly interesting study. It has been criticised though. Although Bogaert did his best, it's difficult to separate nurture from nature when you're discussing numbers of siblings. While his inclusion of adopted siblings in the study was well-intentioned, the subtly different way adopted children are treated in a family environment could account for quite major psychological differences. So once again, we have evidence that suggests there COULD be biological factors involved, but we don't know for sure.

 

The point of referring to studies like Hamer et al is to remind those that are quick to say "homosexuality is a choice" that to state such things is to fall into a logical fallacy of false assumption. There simply isn't any reason to state it other than it might be a conclusion already reached and you want it to be true.

Absolutely. However, there are also those, like Dagobahn Eagle in this very thread, who pop up and state with a completely straight face that "Homosexuality is NOT a choice". And this must also be refuted in a similar fashion, because there probably IS an element of choice involved.

 

The problem with extreme views isn't that they're right wing or left wing, the problem is that they're extreme, and necessarily illogical. I'd like to see extreme views on BOTH sides of this debate refuted with equal fervour.

 

Yes, but the argument, usually by those that attempt to distance themselves from the religious (or appear to), is that marriage is about reproduction. It isn't. That's part of marriage and may be the core reason for some, but there are many, many reasons to marry, regardless of your opinion on the practice.

Actually the only reason to marry is that it's a state sanctioned institution with tax breaks and other financial perks.

 

I'll never marry. Doesn't matter how much I luuuurrrrve my partner, I don't agree with marriage. It's an institution which has ONLY NEGATIVE RESULTS. There's nothing positive about the state of marriage. It doesn't make your relationship stronger. It's a shambolic industry, like christmas. It has archaic ritualistic connotations. It's an injustice to single and unmarried people. It's a social evil.

 

Yeah, yeah. We hear you. It's not going to happen. Since it isn't, gays and heterosexuals that want to marry within their gender should be permitted to do so. There simply is no legitimate reason to disallow it.

The only reason it's not going to happen is because campaigners have been MISDIRECTING their efforts for years. Instead of campaigning for homosexuals' right to marry, they should have been campaigning for the abolition of marriage. And frankly, it's not too late to start. Go and make yourself a placard this instant!

 

Really? You see any sign that marriage is about to be "phased out?" LOL.

Twenty years ago, there was no sign that homosexuals would be allowed to marry. Campaigning got the job done.

 

And once again, the point is that all those who are lobbying for homosexual marriage, all those who are standing up for homosexual marriage, all those who believe that homosexuals should be allowed to marry... they're all looking the wrong damn way.

 

It's like... campaigning for the right of senior citizens to be allowed to join the army. It might sound very noble to some anti-ageism campaigners, but the BIGGER picture is that the army is responsible for great crimes against humanity. We should be campaigning for the abolition of the armed forces as we currently know them, not lobbying for more people to join them!

 

One or two people opposed to marriage aren't likely to abolish the practice. Nor is there any serious talk of doing so.

Well why don't you join us then? Swell our numbers a bit.

 

I think we can dismiss this argument with regard to the same-sex marriage issue.

You can dismiss what you like, but I'm firmly convinced that it's the real issue. The question of whether homosexuals should be allowed to marry is trivia used to disguise and maintain a truly important social evil.

[SkinWalker]

Well why don't you join us then? Swell our numbers a bit.

 

I'm married and like it.

[Spider AL]

Nah, judging from your statement, you're in a stable relationship and you like it. If I were to take away your wedding rings and/or marriage certificate, would that change the way you feel about your spouse?

 

Hopefully not. So to you, the state of marriage is a practical irrelevance, as it is to all those in or out of stable relationships. Dispassionately weigh that against the negative social connotations of the institution of marriage, and you should be sprinting to join our cause.

[Jae Onasi]

I think marriage is a big deal, and more than a stable relationship. I've made a commitment in public to be with Jimbo and Jimbo only til one of us croaks. It's helped me through those times when I wanted to whack him over the head in frustration over something (usually stupid). There's a subtle but important difference between someone I've decided to have a relationship with(e.g. close friends, former boyfriends), and the commitment associated with the marriage covenant/contract.

And yes, I do like the deduction, thank you. It helps us be more stable financially which helps the entire family. I'd rather keep as much of the money I've earned rather than give extra over to a bloated and wasteful government.

[SkinWalker]

One of the most vocal criticisms of same-sex marriage is that it "destroys traditional marriage" if permitted or somehow threatens the "sanctity of marriage." The inference is that if gays are allowed to marry in the same manner as opposingly gendered individuals, the "institution" of marriage will be devalued, lost, or destroyed.

 

Fortunately, new research shows this to be pure poppycock, as any reasoned mind already concluded. William Eskridge and Darren Spedale have looked at the trends of marriage in the 17 years since Scandinavian countries have had legal marriages for people of the same sex, and published a summary of their findings in a recent issue of the Wall Street Journal. Here are some quotes:

 

Seventeen years after recognizing same-sex relationships in Scandinavia there are higher marriage rates for heterosexuals, lower divorce rates, lower rates for out-of-wedlock births, lower STD rates, more stable and durable gay relationships, more monogamy among gay couples, and so far no slippery slope to polygamy, incestuous marriages, or "man-on-dog" unions.

 

Obviously, it cannot be concluded that same-sex marriage is a causation for the improved marriages among opposite-sex couples as this is only a correlation. It does, however, completely and utterly destroy the notion that same-sex marriage is a threat to opposite-sex marriage. Furthermore, there were some other benefits that the study uncovered:

 

Our research has also uncovered additional social benefits. In dozens of interviews with partnered couples and through other sources, we found that marriage rights had an important beneficial effect not only on the couples themselves, but on their local and national communities as well. Couples reported that their relationships were stronger and more durable, that relationships with family members had deepened, that co-workers had become more tolerant and supportive, and their children felt greater validation by having married parents. Many couples reported a greater emphasis on monogamy, which may be reflected by the fact that national rates of HIV and STD infections declined in each of the Scandinavian countries in the years after they passed their partnership laws.

 

Among gays as among heterosexuals, those that are in committed relationships are role models. The role-model of married couples for single soldiers was something that I distinctly remember from my days in the military. The wives club consistently supported the soldiers before, during, and after deployment; married soldiers were generally encouraged to invite single soldiers to their homes for meals and socialization; etc. For the military unit, this is a no-brainer. Married soldiers have less incidents of "unpleasantness" than single. As single soldiers hang out with married, their incidents decrease as well.

 

Its time for our nation to progress and lift itself out of the 19th century and into the 21st. There simply is no logical reason continue to disallow same-sex marriage and every logical reason to afford gays the same opportunities available to heterosexuals. The only objections are based in superstition and unreason.

[Mace MacLeod]

http://news.sympatico.msn.ctv.ca/TopStories/ContentPosting.aspx?newsitemid=CTVNews%2f20061103%2fhaggard_allegations_061103&feedname=CTV-TOPSTORIES_V2&showbyline=True

 

Posted this in Ahto but it bears repeating here. If you're an Evangelical pastor of a 14,000 member church campaigning against same-sex marriage, snorting rails of meth while getting hot oil rubdowns at the Pink Oboe Palace should not be your first choice of leisure activity. The phrase "Practice What You Preach" becomes more than a proverb when you're actually a preacher; it becomes a job description. And if you can't do that, you're in the wrong line of work.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Is that the same Ted Haggard who was confronted by Richard Dawkins in "The Root of All Evil?"? In which case I never had much respect for him anyhow. "You called my children animals" - Bah.

[Mace MacLeod]

^^Could be. Can't say I ever paid much attention to the ravings of right-wing Evangelical holy rollers.

[Jae Onasi]

The phrase "Practice What You Preach" becomes more than a proverb when you're actually a preacher; it becomes a job description. And if you can't do that, you're in the wrong line of work.

 

Well, even pastors get horny, but yeah, that was "Dumb with a capital Duh".

[Mace MacLeod]

^^This guy's married. He had a perfectly ethical and legal outlet for "horny". Why he resorted to crank-snorting pillow-biters is beyond me.

[edlib]

Being married to a woman doesn't make you a hetero man by default. Lots of gay and bi men get married to women.

[Mace MacLeod]

Sure, but those guys don't lead Church movements against same-sex marriage.

[edlib]

Well, in this particular case that might not be true. Always a first time, y'know...

 

If you are going to lead a church of that type, you have got to play the part... even if you don't practice, (or even believe) the words you are saying. No different than theater... just at a different scale... and probably far, far more lucrative.

 

There was also the Congressman who led a crusade against kiddie porn who wrote dirty messages to teenage boys...

 

And: The gay governor who resigned and is divorcing from his wife after it was revealed he gave high-paying, important jobs to his lovers...

 

Lots of closeted gayness to go around in politics. And religion. And never a shortage of hypocrisy in either.

 

I find none of this the slightest bit shocking. If anything, the only part I find the slightest bit shocking is that it was taken this long for someone to trip up and get caught, or be revealed by those in the know.

 

There will be more.

[Mace MacLeod]

Oh, I'm not particularly shocked by this guy. I just thought it was a laugh more than anything else.

 

And sure, there are plenty of closeted gays and lesbians out there who know perfectly well that coming out would hurt their careers, but I think this Haggard guy might have wanted to get caught. It's one thing to be in the closet, and it's another to make anti-gay railing a central plank in your public personna. Was this guy thinking his gay lover never turned on a tv or read a newspaper? Did it never occur to him that the other regulars at the White Swallow Gym & Bathhouse just might get offended and want to see him go down in flames? This guy was just being way too risky for someone in his position.

[Jae Onasi]

Well, Boy-toy apparently saved the envelopes that Haggard sent money to him in, and I can't imagine saving used up envelopes for any other purpose than setting the guy up. It's not like you can even use the things for scrap paper. And I agree he was being way to risky. Talking to Boy-toy in the first place was too risky.

Haggard's been removed from his pastorate as well, which he should be.