California's Prop 8 deemed unconstitutional

[John Smith]

Clonehunter said:

Secondly, I'm not that religious. More than once I've really just used it as an excuse.

This statement applies to at least half of homophobic people in the entire US I have no doubt. And is even more pathetic than the actual religious reason. Congratulations on making yourself look more the fool, though.

POTGIESSER said:

Giant page of text.

All I see when I read that is a woman trying to sneak in some feminist high-fiving in the form of a "study" (thats of course not linked to) about brain activity in homosexual men. I can just imagine that the author of this article is a bra-burning type whose son is twinky as all hell and she's trying to compensate for both in one go.

[myk]

John Smith said:
(thats of course not linked to)

The publications containing the studies are clearly mentioned in the article. Academics don't normally run off to post their findings on Blogger at the first opportunity, you know.

I see nothing special in brains performing a similar function (being attracted to males) being similar in structure in some respect. The article doesn't conclude the similarity is genetically hard-wired, either.

As for what you wrote off in a misogynistic ad hominem about the article's author; progressives do tend to be interested in aspects that drive out prejudice by uniting the "different", and it's impossible to deal with this topic without an interest at stake. Science can only do so much about it. It's mostly a political issue.

What I find funny in the context of the discussion is that the article is on "straight.com". (Although it's called that way for reasons unrelated to the topic.)

[lupinx-Kassman]

Haha from the first post I knew this was a flamewar just waiting to happen. About the proposition though, I am glad that it was overturned. It raises my faith in humanity a little.

[Mr. Freeze]

E.J. said:

Wall of derp[/i].

"Got Hates Fags" and similar schools of thought are the result of human error, outdated cultural values, and biased translation. As with any group, the worst parts are always the loudest.

http://www.hoperemains.webs.com/

I urge everyone in this thread to read this website.

[VinceDSS]

Several years back, France solved that problem by creating a "civil union", which both straight and same-sex couples can take.

Interesting fact is that a lot of straight couples take it instead of regular "marriage". Mainly because they do not want to be associated with any religions, as "marriage" has a strong religious tie.

To me it makes total sense that people who love each other, regardless of sexual orientation, should have a legal form of union which grants them the same rights, duties and protection as married people.

I personnally do not care if it's called marriage or civil union, they mean the same to me. But I do understand that religiously inclined people may flinch on the use of the word "marriage".

[Aliotroph?]

You urge us all into Biblical scholarship? Why? You don't get to start a religious debate with "God hates fags"-type fanatics. They'll have nothing to do with their version of the Bible being wrong. That site claims to be for insecure, faithful gays. They seem to have got that right. Changing people's religious beliefs only happens if they want the change.

[E.J.]

Mr. Freeze said:

"Got Hates Fags" and similar schools of thought are the result of human error, outdated cultural values, and biased translation. As with any group, the worst parts are always the loudest.

http://www.hoperemains.webs.com/

I urge everyone in this thread to read this website.

I don't know about you, but my parents are born-again, Christian, biblical inerrants. Their friends are a lot of fun to be around as well, and believe me they are all intolerant of gays, separation of church & state, and the teaching of evolution, and the teaching of an old earth in schools. They pull all of this from directly from a "literal" view of the Bible, and it's not a mis-translation, this is what the people who wrote the Bible say is the word of God.

Science has already demonstrated that being gay isn't as simple as being one, or the other, like two sides of a coin. It's more like a "spectrum", or didn't anyone pay attention in class? There's more than just straight, or gay. Some have even hypothesized that all humans are inherently bisexual by nature, with the environment bringing out the appropriate behavior.

Twin studies, self report surveys, and yes, neuro-chemical differences can all be cited as lines of evidence for some biological basis involved in homosexual behavior.

If you need links, use Google.

I noticed that nobody still answered my earlier question: what do the origins of homosexual behavior have to do with marriage / civil union?

Homosexuality was declassified, and removed from the DSM, as a disorder back in the 70's, because they realized it was not a harmful behavior to the individual.

[Enjay]

Heh, all this reminds me of a story that a two of my friends have. They are both gay, but not a couple. They had been invited to the wedding of a mutual friend and went to stay in his house the night before the wedding. In addition, there was another group of the groom's friends staying in the house and they were quite strong Christians.

Everything seemed to be going nicely until one of the Christians said to one of my friends "you should come along to our church in the morning".

He responded "Oh, I'm not sure that we would be welcome".

"Why ever not?"

"Because we are gay."

At that point the whole nature of the evening changed and there was much in the way of uncomfortable shifting in seats and avoiding certain topics of conversation. (Which, to be fair, is exactly what my friend (who specialises in being a social hand grenade) had engineered with his response.)

Anyway, later in the evening, a discussion came about over sleeping arrangements. There was only one spare (double bed) and everyone else was just going to be using floor space and sleeping bags. Various people were trying to be polite and offer the bed to others and things were going nowhere until my friend (ever the shite-hawk) said "No problem" and, nodding to my other friend continued "we'll take the double".

The logic was sound. Everyone else had avoided the bed either because they were polite or because they didn't want to share the bed so the arrangement stood (especially as my friends didn't allow time for discussion and just went to bed).

A little later, my friends were in the bedroom laughing and giggling and deliberately making the bed squeak. A few moments later, one of the Christians burst in and declared "I'm sorry, I hope I'm not interrupting anything". My friend replied "Actually, I'm pretty sure that interrupting something was exactly your intention".

Twice more that night, one of the Christians "accidentally" wandered into the room and apologised. When my friends got up in the morning, they opened the bedroom door to find a sleeping bag laid out on the other side of the door and, after speaking to the groom (who found the whole thing very amusing) they found out that the Christians had taken it in turns to "keep guard" outside the bedroom all night.

And, as I said, these two guys are not, nor have they ever been, a couple so the whole thing was for nothing anyway. LOL

[Abyssalstudios1]

This is exactly why I'm ashamed to be associated with most Christians today.

[myk]

E.J. said:
I don't know about you, but my parents are born-again, Christian, biblical inerrants. Their friends are a lot of fun to be around as well, and believe me they are all intolerant of gays, separation of church & state, and the teaching of evolution, and the teaching of an old earth in schools.

You do better speaking directly about your parents and people like them, instead of generalizing, as there are other religious people who are not as intolerant or are plain tolerant, if not openly gay and religious. The "born again" are particularly extreme, like newbies trying really hard to fit in.

They pull all of this from directly from a "literal" view of the Bible, and it's not a mis-translation, this is what the people who wrote the Bible say is the word of God.

"Literal" reading requires interpretation. It's extremely hard to know what the ancients meant without a thorough knowledge of their time and society. People who are more faith-prone than critical-minded are not the most informative to ask about the meanings in a centuried work of literature. Really, believing people can just "rightly interpret" texts with layers of meaning (just because they say so) is not very different from the more dogmatic religious thought. If you defend science, you should know better.

I noticed that nobody still answered my earlier question: what do the origins of homosexual behavior have to do with marriage / civil union?

Those who oppose same sex marriage think that since (their version of) the origins imply it's evil or immoral, the law should not allow homosexuals the right to marry people of their sex. If homosexuality is hard-coded in any way, and not a conscious election or a result of upbringing, same sex marriage opponents lose strength in their arguments, which mostly imply "correcting" homosexuals.

[bytor]

If marriage is a religous ceremony, then isn't the government (by defining a marriage/civil union) establishing itself as a religion?

How does a government sustain it's economy when procreation is slowly removed?

[myk]

bytor said:
How does a government sustain it's economy when procreation is slowly removed?

People certainly wouldn't stop reproducing just because the state doesn't marry them. What I think would happen is that a good number of people would go marry elsewhere. Seeing the marriage as beneficial, some would move their homes, earnings or business to the place that married them. Presumably, a state could try to counter that by legislation that grants similar benefits to people forming couples or reproducing, but that is not an easy to do, if possible, especially when people are quite used to an easy-to-grasp concept of marriage.

[gggmork]

E.J. said:

being gay isn't as simple as being one, or the other, like two sides of a coin. It's more like a "spectrum"

Yeah, its more like.. a rainbow. :D

Have any scientists studied the correlation between homosexuals and those who have watched a lot of Barney as a youngster? It could be evidence to support the theory that teh Gay are like a form of the Borg, trying to assimilate humans at the children level with Yo Gabba Gabba, peewee herman, thundercats and drawing subliminal penises on the covers of disney movies. Probably only a few rich people have immunity and the rest of humanity will cease reproducing as planned.

[bytor]

myk said:

...benefits to people forming couples or reproducing,

Such as the "Working Family Tax Relief Act of 2004" and it's extended "Child Tax Credit"?

It appears to me that more and more people are turning to a 'gay' lifestyle. This is counter to a healthy and productive society in the long run. Nevermind the current unemployment statistics they feed us.

Perhaps this is why the Feds insist on allowing illegal mexicans to flood across our borders?

Did I just blame gays for illegal immigration? ;)

[John Smith]

myk said:

As for what you wrote off in a misogynistic ad hominem about the article's author

You speak as if misogyny is a bad thing.

[Bank]

bytor said:

It appears to me that more and more people are turning to a 'gay' lifestyle. This is counter to a healthy and productive society in the long run. Nevermind the current unemployment statistics they feed us.

Did it occur to you that perhaps this is the first time in history where homosexuality is not publicly stigmatized and thus people are more able to express themselves openly and without fear of condemnation?

[E.J.]

bytor said:

How does a government sustain it's economy when procreation is slowly removed?

Who said gay people don't have kids?

[Kirby]

E.J. said:

Who said gay people don't have kids?

That wasn't his point. He was stating that couples would not create babies, not that they would stop adopting or use some other form of obtaining children

John smith said:

You speak as if misogyny is a bad thing.

Stop that

[Bank]

Kirby said:

That wasn't his point. He was stating that couples would not create babies

Again, who says they don't?

[gggmork]

Oh yeah, I saw Junior starring Arnold Schwarzenegger.

[Aliotroph?]

Bank said:

Did it occur to you that perhaps this is the first time in history where homosexuality is not publicly stigmatized and thus people are more able to express themselves openly and without fear of condemnation?

This.

And what's with the "gay lifestyle" comments all the time? As if gays had one lifestyle! George Takei lives nothing like the lesbian band girls from high school.

The rest of us who don't want kids don't turn to being gay either. We just use a condom, a pill, a diaphragm (often with icky poison gel), a female condom, an abortion, contraceptive surgery, or just sex with thinking behind it.

[Enjay]

gggmork said:

Oh yeah, I saw Junior starring Arnold Schwarzenegger.

I know, and know of, gay people who got kids the traditional way.

[myk]

Bank said:
Did it occur to you that perhaps this is the first time in history where homosexuality is not publicly stigmatized and thus people are more able to express themselves openly and without fear of condemnation?

In recent history, perhaps, but it's not the first time in human history.

[Kirby]

Bank said:

Again, who says they don't?

Never said they didn't, just clarifying what he was saying :P

Bank said:
Did it occur to you that perhaps this is the first time in history where homosexuality is not publicly stigmatized and thus people are more able to express themselves openly and without fear of condemnation?

Define "publicly stigmatized". It still seems to me that plenty of people, especially religious types, are publicly stigmatizing homosexuality and making their voices known that it is not OK. If your trying to get at a general consensus of how the public as a whole feels about it then I'd say you're getting closer.

Also, along with what myk said, this guy

[Bank]

myk said:

In recent history, perhaps, but it's not the first time in human history.

Sure, we're talking about current events so I thought recent was implied, my bad.

Kirby said:

Define "publicly stigmatized". It still seems to me that plenty of people, especially religious types, are publicly stigmatizing homosexuality and making their voices known that it is not OK. If your trying to get at a general consensus of how the public as a whole feels about it then I'd say you're getting closer.

50 years ago you couldn't be openly gay. Sure you could but it might cost you your job, your friends, your reputation, or they could decide you were mentally ill. That is not the society we live in now (at least in certain parts of the world, that is.) Certainly there are always people who will stigmatize anything, but religious individuals who have that opinion do not make the entirety of "the public."

I think that it's pretty obvious, people are noticing more gay people because more gay people feel safe being open about themselves publicly. Unlike black people, women, the disabled, or any other group historically discriminated against in this country, gay people don't look any different so, living in a hetrocentric culture, anyone who didn't go out and say they were gay was straight. There weren't fewer gay people before, there just was no open gay presence in the media or mainstream culture unlike today. The stigma existed, and no one felt like the risks of being openly gay were worth it.

[bytor]

How many hid in 'straight' marriages and ... reproduced? Now they aren't as likely.

Of course the government is watching population growth projections. We musn't cut back on funding! ;p

You really must explain to me how gay couples procreate.

[Technician]

I assume it's the easiest (and I'm under the impression, most common) for lesbian couples to use donor seed and host the baby. For men they will need a Surrogate mother. Neither case will a couple have a child that shares each other's genes.

[GreyGhost]

gggmork said:

It could be evidence to support the theory that teh Gay are like a form of the Borg, trying to assimilate humans at the children level with Yo Gabba Gabba, peewee herman, thundercats and drawing subliminal penises on the covers of disney movies. Probably only a few rich people have immunity and the rest of humanity will cease reproducing as planned.

I see a flaw in that theory. When rich people account for 100% of the population they'll have no-one to look down their noses at so it'll be necessary to keep a few poor people around just for that purpose. As with all resources scarcity will transform the poor into a valuable commodity, a situation that they could exploit to become wealthier than their masters and in time become the new elite. If by that stage medical science has found a cure for old age, Earth could be ruled by gays for millennia.

[Gez]

If rich people account for 100% of the population, then they won't be rich anymore. Richness is a relative status. You are rich by comparison to the rest of the world. Let's take a world where all the population that isn't at least a millionaire is no longer here. Then the millionaires are the new poor people, and you have to be billionaire at the very least to be somewhat rich. The real wealth, though, is now with the trillionaires. This is a form of extreme inflation.

So, how can 100% of the population be rich? The only way to achieve that is if they all have exactly the same amount of wealth, so that nobody is poor relatively to the others. Which just means that everybody is poor.

In fact, the surest way to become rich is to make most everyone else poorer than you. This provides you with a comparative advantage over the rest of your fellow humans, and with a source of cheap labor because fuck, if you're rich, you're not going to wash your own dishes, are you? What's the point of being rich if it's to live like a poor?

So no. Any secret conspiracy of the rich people cannot be to eliminate the poor. If anything, the Illuminati will be conspiring to make poor people even poorer, by inciting them to breed like rabbits so that the little they have must be spread even thinner. Whereas the rich people try to avoid having too many heirs because it's important not to divide the family's assets too much.

Which means the conspiracy is actually about making sure the rich's offsprings, not the poors', are as gay as possible!

[Enjay]

Anyway, despite national interests and so on, our ever increasing population is going to start becoming a global problem before too long.