|
California's top court legalizes gay marriage (pg. 7)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| in2muzikk |
| quote: | Originally posted by mobius9
There is not much research that is unbiased in relation directly to hereditary sexual preferences such as being gay. I guess an example, possible a book you might be interested in is actually titled "Born Gay" - http://www.narth.com/docs/psychobiology.html. As you can see from the link I posted, the entire field is not met without controversy. I take twin research as nearly the most valid because it is viewed from a more statistical and neutral point rather than a persuasive one. |
Researchers have also done studies showing that the brains of gay vs. straight people are developed differently. Look at this one, for example:
http://www.sciencentral.com/article...8392238&cat=1_1
"Roselli says the study suggests to him that at least some homosexuality is biologically caused. "This is a very primitive area of the brain and it controls basic autonomic, automatic functions such as the control of feeding, or blood pressure or temperature. It also controls some very complex emotions and behaviors like sexual behavior or sexual desire. It's not an area of the brain that we are conscious of, its perceptions are not perceptions that we are aware of."
Even if sexual orientation is purely 100% choice and you in fact woke up one day and decided to become straight, I really don't see that it changes things much. In the end, it's about providing everyone in the human race with the same civil liberties as others, not denying them based on societal or cultural norms, etc. |
|
|
| nerdgrl416 |
| quote: | Originally posted by mobius9
|
It's one thing to voice our opinions. That's what's this forum is about. The thing about homosexuality being a preference is bull to me.
Do you know first hand that it's not true? If you ask a gay person if they wanted to be gay growing up, they would all tell you no.
No one wants to be different and risk not being accepted by family and friends. With all that said, that's my belief and you have yours but please don't challenge my beliefs. Let's agree to disagree and end this topic. This is ridiculous.
I'm stepping out. |
|
|
| selfEvolution |
The notion that marriage is for procreation flies in the face of individual liberty and freedom. Women are not baby factories, and neither are men.
It's interesting how millions of "conservatives" don't want us becoming over populated with "illegal aliens" and "welfare children" on one hand and yet insist that women be baby making machines on the other hand.
While it's very honorable to want to raise children, not all heterosexuals can or will, and there are plenty of honorable non-heterosexual doctors, social workers, etc., who *save* children.
Further, nearly 1.5 million children die from starvation and poor drinking water the world over each year. Clearly the world is overpopulated enough as it is. If the agenda is really about saving lives, sustaining populations and nurturing families, and *not* about bigotry, then before I had any children who I could selfishly call "my own", I would adopt those who need life the most.
That said, a minority sexual orientation will never curtail population growth. If anything, it might help *a little* with over-population, as it has in Cuba. |
|
|
| Yookeroo |
| quote: | Originally posted by nerdgrl416
It's one thing to voice our opinions. That's what's this forum is about. The thing about homosexuality being a preference is bull to me.
Do you know first hand that it's not true? If you ask a gay person if they wanted to be gay growing up, they would all tell you no.
No one wants to be different and risk not being accepted by family and friends. |
Or worse, being beaten or killed just for being gay.
This whole marriage is only about children is just bull. Lots of couples get married and don't have kids. Should sterile people not be allowed to marry? Do any marriage laws state that it's all about children? It's rationalization to hide bigotry. |
|
|
| mobius9 |
Self-Evo: You bring up many good points, in fact, I agree with pretty much all the 10 points. Gays do not deserve to be discriminated against and Christianity has no place in the argument of marriage because it is a government issue. While I haven't been in the bible belt recently, I like to think that gays are more accepted than the situation with 1950's racism however. That view seems kind of extreme. I am still in the viewpoint that gays do not fall under the qualifications of marriage, and that it is because of this that they are not being discriminated against. Harsh or not, I can not call discrimination because people refuse to call me disabled or Asian. I am not physically disabled, and I am not Asian. I don't see how gay couples fall into the category of marriage because they are not reproducing partners. If you think that reform needs to be issued around the titling or benefits of heterosexual couples and marriage then I agree. I don't think people should be getting married in general just for benefits.
The documentary Immigration by the Numbers ([[ LINK REMOVED ]]
) shows that country's population is stabilizing among its citizens, yet is still exploding because of illegal immigration. It's a good documentary to watch overall, and there was a thread about it here on the west coast board a while ago.
In2musik - Good article. Indeed genetics and brain development are two different things to look at. Suggestions with testosterone in the womb causing the decision of homosexuality would not be consistent with the research I've posted on genetically identical twins though.
The other thing to consider, is that physical growth size of areas of the brain are also influenced by nurturing experiences. I did not see in the study that they took account the various structure sizes at birth in relation to how large they were when matured. I'm sure the similarities they're finding among "gay" brains are with reason and not just coincidence, however the research assumes the brain organ's growth is not affected by the environment it develops in. -
"By age 15, those who had unsatisfactory relationships with their parents were likely to have a larger hippocampus, an area of the brain associated with memory formation, said Martha Farah, the director of the Centre for Cognitive Neuroscience at the University of Pennsylvania, who conducted the study."
http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/st...3190652852.html
It is not to go without dispute, perhaps the brain influenced the gay actions in the study you posted, but perhaps the gay actions influenced the brain's development. I'm not sure how to validate articles which compare brain or genetic similarities that seem to be disproved by identical twin research.
edit> applause once again Chris for putting so much time into your post |
|
|
| JCIZZLE! |
| quote: | Originally posted by selfEvolution
Equality in marriage for all consenting adult *couples* is about the larger issue of human rights, as it was when a majority of people were (and perhaps still are) against the judicial overturning of the majority laws against interracial marriage. This is not a "gay verses straight" issue as much as it is an opportunity to tell the world that we stand against bigotry, fight against intolerance and chose education above blind hatred. Permission is given to quote any of the following, and I'm not ashamed if you use my name, Chris Aable to quote any of this. You can also modify it any way you wish and make it your own, provided it is reposted in the spirit for which it is intended: Freedom and Equality.
Note: I use the term non-heterosexual as a respectful short-cut to encapsulate many important groups who this will give greater freedom and equality to: Lesbians, gay men, bisexuals, transsexuals, transgender, intersexed (those born or "made by the all-creator" with both male and female organs) - Who do the religious extremists suggest they have the right to marry?
If I were to write any article on the pro-human rights decision by the California Supreme Court, I would begin by noting that three of the four Justices who joined the majority decision in favor of this Constitutional equality are considered "conservative" and were appointed by Republican governors. I would do this because, as self-proclaimed "Christians" such as Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly and Dinesh D'Souza prove, those who subscribe to religious extremism and who habitually obfuscate, will be the ones yelling the loudest and longest about "activist judges supporting gay marriage" and "marriage is for procreation".
The California Supreme Court worked exactly as it was supposed to when discriminatory laws are put on the books. It heard expert testimony from all sides, studied the effects of gay marriage in Massachusetts and other countries, and *weighed the evidence fairly*. Something that the "tyranny of the majority" either does not have the time or the will to do. Many so-called "Chrsitians" will not display either the intellectual honesty nor time to do likewise before bashing the same Supreme Court who ruled in the 1950s that bashing interracial marriages was unconstitutional.
If Dinesh D'Souza, a physically dark person of a "different race" had been dating Ann Coulter in the South during the 50s he probably would have been lynched by white church-going Christians, as many others were for decades. A majority of them didn't want whites dating "people of color". In fact the so-called "Christian" white majority wanted people like Dinesh to sit in the back of the bus until the so-called "activist" judges ruled that the "law of the land" (segregation) was unconstitutional.
If individuals in "cultural minority groups" have a problem with the comparison of their struggles with the struggles of millions of non-heterosexual minorities, then they should look deeply into their own discrimination and prejudice, because in the true sense of a fair, civilized society people would be viewed as humans first, second and third, as individuals, as families and as friends.
The good news is that most people can learn and grow, and change their subscriptions when they finally realize that they may have been subscribing to erroneous magazines all along. On the Oprah Winfrey show I once witnessed a self-proclaimed "KKK grand dragon" change her bigotry and renounce her organization when presented with the realities from a black person who's personal life had nothing to to with her own.
An equally important issue for me is how America will be viewed now and in the future by the rest of the civilized world. How this country will be seen by those seeking to escape the tyranny from the emotional prejudices of majorities. If this country, often called the "greatest in the world", would *not* offer the homage of equality and tolerance to all consenting adults, then what message would that send to leaders of tyranny the world over, where gay people are often tortured, imprisoned and beaten to death?
The soul of tolerance is looking at us through the eyes of the world, and tolerance cannot like what it sees when reading the intolerance from Dinesh and his supporters, who take away their own focus from more important, Christ-affirming priorities - helping the weak, the poor and the powerless. Instead, millions who subscribe to extremism will spend millions of collective hours doing quite the opposite - collectively bashing non-heterosexuals and their Constitutional right to the pursuit of happiness. Part of that "pursuit of happiness" means being viewed or at least treated fairly as societal *equals* based on individual talents and character, not who they happen to love or want to be with.
Those who subscribe to religious extremism will defile the very god they pretend to believe in, and behave like anything but Christ-like as they bare false witness to support their prejudices. Here is but ten of a long list of mass hypocrisies, as extremisms focuses not on its own redemption, but bashing other people with negative stereotypes while trying to bash minority rights into the ground:
1.) The Judicial branch worked exactly as it was supposed to when discriminatory laws are put on the books between two consenting adults. The court protected the minority from the tyranny of the majority, just as it protected interracial marriage from the will of the majority in the 1950s. Most people I know who subscribe to religious extremism were against interracial marriage, citing the bible as cover for their hatred. Yet, most so-called "Christians" I know can't even remember half of the Ten Commandments, none of which mentions homosexuality, but one of which states that we should "NOT work on the Sabbath". If we're going to deny two consenting adults the equal right to marry based on an ancient book of fairy tales, then we may as well deny rights for the millions of people who "WORK on the Sabbath" - and the ones who employee them by buying at their work - fast food places, skating rinks, ball games, theaters, malls, etc.
2.) In a democracy that respects equality, the national and state constitutions are designed to protect minorities such as non-heterosexuals from the ignorance and emotional prejudices of the majority. When the majority tries to ram their religious and/or anti non-heterosexual beliefs down the throats of the world to support their pet prejudices, the Supreme Court has to listen to rational debate. The Supreme Court protects both minority religions and minorities of all types including the minority sexual orientations. The Supreme Court is essentially "we the people" being a branch of government to keep the legislature in check when it attempts to make prejudicial, unconstitutional laws.
3.) The California Supreme Court heard hours of rational argument and evidence and deliberated on the testimonies for months after considering both pro-gay-marriage and anti-gay-marriage sides. The anti-gay-marriage proponents were asked over and over to give a compelling arguments that would show that gay marriage somehow injures anyone or injures marriage as we know it. They could not come up with a compelling arguments even though several "experts" were given the opportunity. For those of us who watch CSPAN when it comes to important human-rights legislation, all we heard was their prejudices and their unfounded homophobia.
4.) The bible mentions "gluttony" far more as an "abomination" than it does homosexuality. How many gluttonous Christians do we know? Some would say Jerry Falwell was "gluttonous". According to his doctors, Falwell's excess weight led to an early death from congestive heart failure at age seventy-three. That's not exactly "death age" these days. My relatively fit grandparents and Great-Aunts either lived pass ninety or are currently alive and well in their nineties. Falwell, ignoring his calling to be Christlike and "judge not less you be judged" is the same person who called non-heterosexual Ellen DeGeneres, "Ellen Degenerate". Falwell is just one of millions during this decade who subscribed to religious extremism until the end of their lives, often ending because of obesity. Isn't their body their god's temple as mentioned in their bible?
5.) There are even intersexed people found in all cultures - people BORN with BOTH male and female organs - who do the lying Christians suggest *they* have the right marry? God, who allegedly is the "all-knowing all-creator" by definition, "created" different sexual orientations as found in millions of people in all cultures throughout history.
6.) Marriage is not just for "pro-creation". The notion that non-heterosexual marriage will somehow disrupt population growth is ridiculous. To the contrary, populations in areas where gay marriage is allowed have continued to grow unabated, with teenage pregnancy continuing to run riot. There are millions of couples who either cannot or will not have children in an already growing and overpopulated world where famine and clean water shortages amounting to 1.5 million deaths of children each year. Millions more cannot conceive after fifty years of age, but engage in active sex lives and even cheat on their spouses regardless of religiosity or political party. There are millions of more "known as "nuns" and "priests" who will also not have children.
7.) Alexander The Great was bisexual, but preferred men, and many famous army generals consider him to be the greatest general of all times. The Greek culture prospered for centuries until Christianity was adopted by the Romans and then we saw the ushering in of the dark ages, the inquisition and witch huntings. Many non-Christians, non-heterosexuals or those who were biologically different in any way, were burned at the stake or tortured and killed "in the name of god". Likewise the Christian/Catholic followers of Hitler, who mentioned himself as "God's provenance" and had written many pro-Christianity statements in Mein Kamf, engaged in mass wholesale murder of minorities. Fortunately, some people who subscribe to Christianity did not listen to Hitler at great risk to themselves, but unfortunately they were too few and too far between. More fortunately, most Christians I know think that the insecurities of the anti-gay-marriage advocates are as fallacious and distorted as Hitler's ever were. I've never read of a single account of Hitler himself directly killing a Jew nor a non-heterosexual with his bare hands, but he did so cowardly through his denouncements to all of his loyal followers, many of whom never renounced their religion and proceeded about their merry ways, before and after the war, to their church every week. We must also remember that it takes millions of man-hours from once-moral people to commit genocide against millions of others simply because they were "different".
8.) Thomas Jefferson, a founding father, life-long advocate of freedom and the Bill of Rights of the Constitution, stated: "The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others." Gay marriage between two consenting adults was not proven, and has never been proven, to be any more harmful or injurious to any other person than heterosexual marriage. If anything, the most injurious causes of heterosexual divorce come from heterosexuals themselves *One* of the causes of divorce is cheating, often listed as irreconcilable differences, "to save the couple from public embarrassment". With nearly a 50% divorce rate among "Christians" surely "faith" in their god is not *always* stronger than the immediate need for gratification and/or health considerations. If so-called "Christians" are serious about "defending" marriage, they would look at the *real* causes of the weakening of the institution instead of manufacturing excuses to support their biases, prejudices, hatred and "disgust" all of which are attributes born of intolerance, inexperience, and stereotyping while judging an entire group of millions in the minority, instead of educating themselves about the individuals within each group. Our Constitution was designed to protect all people from those who cannot protect themselves from the tyranny of the majority.
9.) Cheating and divorces continue decade after decade, no matter how many prayers have been uttered by preachers and priests, family and friends, to keep the blessed couples together. Studies conducted by Christian organizations found that the divorce rate is actually higher among Christian Fundamentalist than it is among atheists. Divorce rates are higher in the mid south, where non-heterosexuals are relatively closeted, than divorce rates in larger cities where non-heterosexuality is more open and more obvious. I'm not drawing a correlation here, but it does support the fact that the visibility of non-heterosexuals certainly does not harm heterosexual marriage. If a marriage is ever hurt by such exterior matters, then it couldn't have been a very strong marriage to begin with.
10.) Self-proclaimed "Christians" such as Bill O'Reilly used misleading and irrational fear-mongering by stating "gay marriage will lead to polygamy and people marrying animals." It hasn't in five countries where it's legal, nor in Massachusetts, which was the basis for the California Supreme Court's decision -a conservative court that actually weighed the evidence. It is typical of those using fear-bating instead of facts to limit freedom and equality. This deserves further elaboration, because this is not about Bill O'Reilly. It's about the millions of his ilk, the angry white male Limbaugh-type self-proclaimed "dittoheads" and their hypocrisy and thoughtless talking points such as "activist judges" with Bill O'Reilly just being a more visible example.
Those who subscribe to religious extremism wonder often why their god hasn't listened to their prayers for the economy to improve or for the war to be won (ironic, as the bible states Jesus is the "prince of peace"). They might find it more patriotic and Christ-like to focus on much more important issues than their paranoid fear of what really "marriage" should be about. Every hour spent verbally bashing non-heterosexuals or trying to suppress their "right to the pursuit of equal happiness is an hour spent away from many more deadly-serious priorities. They seem to skirt their the calling of Christ (who never mentioned homosexuality) when they could be educating others by putting a focus on:
Human rights and prejudice. Which I hope I have done with this post, knowing I have a lot more to learn myself.
Teenage pregnancy, child abuse and sexual abuse, ironically made more visible by religious extremism in Texas.
National Security by focusing on Afghanistan instead of Iraq. - Nearly twice as many of our citizens have now died in Iraq than during 9-11.
Global Warming, which even a growing list of Republican Leaders are admitting does exist and can be fixed if we put effort into it.
Pollution
Overpopulation
Corrupt politicians
Corrupt corporations
Lack of universal Health Care
Bigotry and hate
Fascism & unscientific propaganda spread as "fact".
When you increase a person's constitutional right to happiness, you increase the world's happiness in total. Marriage may not be your idea of happiness, but for millions of other people the world over, it is. Here is a chance for California to be a shining example for equality and the tolerance of diversity instead of an example of intolerance and bigotry . Non-heterosexual marriage neither threatens marriage nor procreation. No matter how many get married, it will not stop us bisexuals and heterosexuals from making love like crazed weasels and reproducing like bunnies. Masturbate proudly, because if you don't, someone else will. :) |
CAN'T WE ALL JUST GET ALONG! WOW! THIS IS A HELL OF A READ
How do you have the time to put all that together, holy ! :stongue: |
|
|
| selfEvolution |
mobius9 I have time because I'm self-employed and my post is part of my MySpace blog and a book I'm writing - www.MySpace.com/Aable
Since the issue is about Human Rights, I didn't want to oversimplify it with shortcuts or talking points, as it might be taken out of context.
For example, I'm not *directly* comparing present day non-heterosexual rights with interracial bigotry of the 1950s. The point is not one of time, it just happens that laws against interracial marriage were overturned in the 1950s by the CA Court. The larger point is that it is already implied in the Constitution that minority groups, whether consenting adults of color or people with different sexual orientations, are already guaranteed the equal protection clause and the guarantee of their "pursuit of happiness". This, in spite of popular public opninon that interaccial couples should not marry.
Thus, the California Supreme Court had already ruled long ago that the tyranny of the majority should never over ride the freedoms of a minority, unless there is compelling reason that the minority is doing damage to society. There have been no compelling reasons brought before the court, although they had plenty of time to do so. |
|
|
| Jake Benson |
| quote: | Originally posted by mobius9
While I haven't been in the bible belt recently, I like to think that gays are more accepted than the situation with 1950's racism however. |
That's very optimistic, but in the states, this is only true in most metropolitan areas, and that doesn't cover half of the United States. The only advantage gays have elsewhere is the ability to hide it, thus reinforcing homophobia and keeping it overt, whereas black people couldn't hide the color of their skin and racism had to be confronted.
p.s. SelfEvolution I love you. |
|
|
| Jake Benson |
| quote: | Originally posted by mobius9
I was really hoping you would be more mature than this. |
And 10 years ago I was really hoping that America would evolve to the point where I wouldn't have to carefully argue my rights as a homosexual to everyone so that they "get it." I really don't have the patience anymore. |
|
|
| naeblis |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jake Benson
Gay marriages produce families. And the existence of a gay marriage does not lead to the world not existing. That argument is flawed. We don't live in 10,000 B.C. where we need to constantly populate to overcome disease, hunger, and getting eaten by tigers. In fact I think we need to curb the population and homosexuality is the perfect answer to population control. |
So does polygamy and other alternatives to a 'traditional' family. You can't necessarily throw that argument out, if you are going to claim that all people that form a 'family' should be allowed to marry. After all, if traditional marriage is defined as the union of (1) two people of (2) opposite gender, and if, as gay marriage advocates insist, the gender requirement is nothing but prejudice, exclusion and an arbitrary denial of one's autonomous choices in love, then the first requirement -- the number restriction (two and only two) -- is a similarly arbitrary, discriminatory and indefensible denial of individual choice...
To simplify the logic, take out the complicating factor of gender mixing. Posit a union of, say, three gay women all deeply devoted to each other. On what grounds would gay activists dismiss their union as mere activity rather than authentic love and self-expression? On what grounds do they insist upon the traditional, arbitrary and exclusionary number of two? |
|
|
| djjoshuaallen |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jake Benson
And 10 years ago I was really hoping that America would evolve to the point where I wouldn't have to carefully argue my rights as a homosexual to everyone so that they "get it." I really don't have the patience anymore. |
do you have the patience to carry this thread on tranceaddict on for 10 more years, that would be swell:( |
|
|
| diggerz |
| quote: | Originally posted by nchs09
Why has religion "brainwashed"
Its their belief and as valid as yours. (Now i thinkt hey are a bunch of idiots but valid in their mind non-the less. |
this thread needs more ...
 |
|
|
|
|
