11/09/2008 09:05:53 PM EST

Homosexuality

posted by Julesverne

Who would you marry if you were Gay?

The recent dissapproval of California against gay unions prompted these thoughts.

Email Print
Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit Facebook

In the Bible it says, we are created in God's image.

As human beings we are social beings. We like to be around people. and we like to live with people close to us. Most of us like to live with people of opposite sexes, but some of us like to live people of the same sex.

As religion would like to teach us, to love one another as God would love us, why would churches create hatred for people who choose to live with the same sex.

Let's flip the situation. Let's assume that it was the norm for people to live with people of the same sex. If this was the norm, would the majority oppose to some of them who decided to live with the opposite sex. What would the majority do?  I suspect they would much more benevolent., and caring and accepting.

 So the question for the day, "if you were gay for a day, who would you marry?"

I bet your answer would reveal a lot about you and your belief system.

I would like to end my thought with my all-time favorite saying from the movie, "Harold & Kumar go to Whitecastle", --- the universe will fix itself as it should---

 

< Lieberman (my hero) | In good hands with the Biden pick >
 Display:
Homosexuality | 113 comments (113 topical, 0 hidden)
the bible says (none / 0)
we are created in gods image.

This is why Christians argue that gay is an aquired taste.

It is this belief that also drives them to think 'gay' can be 'cured'.

Related to this, they also argue that homosexuality can be spread more if it is more widely accepted.

Therefore the argument to suppress gays and gay lifestyles is to prevent or reduce (by not promoting) homosexuality.

If the Christians could not argue this then they would have no grounds to try and stop or reduce or repress the gay lifestyle such as prop-8.

Unfortunatley the bible says this crap, which leads them to think gay is aquired, which in turn leads them to think that homosexuality can be 'spread', which in trun leads them to fight against human rights etc etc.

by Maverick on 11/09/2008 10:12:42 PM EST

The Bottom Line (none / 0)
People need to be convinced (of the truth) that being gay is not a choice.

A very simple and powerful argument is to simply point out homosexuality in the animal kingdom across a variety of species.

Did that gay Dolphin/Ape/Turtle watch too much Will and Grace or Queer Eye For The Straight Guy? Maybe he was molested? Or maybe she just wanted to impress the guys at the bar so she kissed a girl dolphin?

Obviously that's all absurd, but that proves the critical point: if it was a choice it wouldn't exist in the animal kingdom, period.  More people should adopt and refine this argument.

by Tom Hanc on 11/09/2008 10:24:39 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Not a choice - not a problem? (none / 0)
Some animals eat their children. Should we adopt that too? And pedophilia is also not a choice. In most cases.

by Hexer78 on 11/10/2008 06:53:12 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Wow you convinced me (none / 0)
I should have thought of it that way before.  Obviously, homosexuality is the moral equivalent of eating children.  Which Ivy League collage did you go to?  Because your intelligence level is amazing.

by richardshort2001 on 11/10/2008 11:15:12 AM EST

[ Parent ]
It's not my point (none / 0)
My point is "Animals do it - It's okay for humans" = false. Anyway, in Orthodox countries (I live in Russia, BTW) religious logic goes like this: "Sin is a disease passing down from Adam. It has many symptoms. Some of them are omnipresent (like arrogance), some - rare (like homosexual pedophilia). Sinning or not sinning is not a real choice - sinning is our nature perversed by Adam's crime. Therefore we have to accept Jesus as a cure (which is the only real choice we could make) and do everything to help him fight our sin-desease". And animal nature is also perversed by Adam's sin, because Adam was a link between God and Earth. Failed link - failing Earth.

by Hexer78 on 11/10/2008 11:49:34 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Animals do it - it's okay for human = false (none / 0)
in that you are right, but you still fail to prove why homosexuality is wrong on a secular level.  (i.e. not pointing to a magical book that is not a legal document unlike say the Constitution that guarantees equal protection under the law for all of its citizens.)

by richardshort2001 on 11/10/2008 12:49:38 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Alternate argument (none / 0)

no that doesn't make it okay it means it is not a choice.

What does make it okay is that it harms no one.

by richardshort2001 on 11/10/2008 12:52:35 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Harm is complicated (none / 0)
In America I can't draw pictures of children raped by monsters. Or men. Or me. Why? Does it harm anyone? No. In America I can't marry ten women. Does it harm anyone? No. In America I can't marry a tree. Does it harm anyone? No. Law is not based on pure secular logic. Especially when it comes to marriage. Basically marriage is a religious tradition that slipped into secular law.

by Hexer78 on 11/10/2008 01:15:40 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Wrong (none / 0)

Law is not based on pure secular logic.

In America we have a secular government and Constitution. Your statement above is patently false. You're free to have a theological discussion and opinion about homosexuality, but it is not germane to public policy. As you point out, marriage is a religious tradition, but legally speaking, it is secular law in America. The problem is that we have a large portion of our population that haven't figured that out.

by mr science on 11/10/2008 01:33:45 PM EST

[ Parent ]
US Law (none / 0)
comes from British Common Law.

This Common Law was created centuries *before* Christianity came to the area.

So you are 100% right.

by Tom Hanc on 11/10/2008 01:42:20 PM EST

[ Parent ]
British Common Law (none / 0)
British Common Law is not the issue. As I understand it, church-state-separation as we practice it originated with our Constitution. It's a godless document and is the foundation of our law.

by mr science on 11/10/2008 01:52:13 PM EST

[ Parent ]
My point is that (none / 0)
our system of law comes from British Common Law. I was *agreeing* with you.

The End

by Tom Hanc on 11/10/2008 01:55:14 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Thanks for the props. :) (none / 0)

I appreciate your point, I was just saying that it is different than mine.

by mr science on 11/10/2008 02:06:31 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Yes (none / 0)
The founders were largely secu lar deists, especially Jefferson.

Thankfully that lead to a secular document (The Constitution).

by Tom Hanc on 11/10/2008 02:12:16 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Again (none / 0)
Not my point. But thanks for the history lesson. ;)

by mr science on 11/10/2008 02:16:09 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Next time I'm charging (none / 0)
$9.99 per minute.

;)

by Tom Hanc on 11/10/2008 02:21:16 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Learning Extension (none / 0)

If you want to know more, here is my first ever Forum entry.

It is immediately followed by Ken's first ever pathetic ass attempt to attack an argument of mine on a technicality and try to change the subject when I am kicking his ass.

by ProfRich on 11/10/2008 03:12:03 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Well, no (none / 0)
Legally - yes. Actually? No. What is the secular base for "no polygamy" clause? Or "no incest" clause? Actual secular marriage should be a contract between some adults and state. Something like "we provide some new citizens (children) or some money (in additional taxes) and you provide state/federal bonuses, protections etc for married teams". In Russia, for example, two children = $10000 bonus from the state.

by Hexer78 on 11/10/2008 01:50:24 PM EST

[ Parent ]
polygamy/incest... (none / 0)
Your error is in assuming secular law has to permit all things because it's not faith based. Simply stated, our law is made with secular reasoning and morality as it's basis. What about that makes incest permissible?

by mr science on 11/10/2008 02:03:43 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Well... (none / 0)
What about that makes incest not permissible? Adults, consent, no harm for someone else. Good to go.

by Hexer78 on 11/10/2008 02:16:18 PM EST

[ Parent ]
There is a genetic incest taboo (none / 0)
This genetic taboo spans cultures and religions and it makes sense because incest (assuming conception and birth) often results in genetic defects.



by Tom Hanc on 11/10/2008 02:20:03 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Good point, but... (none / 0)
You are talking about eugenics. "Let's make kids with good genes, let's prohibit marriage for all people with bad genes". Saying A, say B. Or say that people should have the right to gamble with their genes. Or adopt some unwanted baby. Or don't have sex at all (perfectly good marriage in Christianity, BTW).

by Hexer78 on 11/10/2008 02:41:38 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I'm not sure I understand (none / 0)
There is no evidence that the sniper was a product of eugenics, none whatsoever. He just had a "naturally occurring" brain tumor.

Not having sex at all is a bad idea for 99% of marriages, Christian or not. Maybe if you get married after age 70 I could see it, but otherwise I think that's generally regarded as unhealthy for the relationship and ridiculous.

by Tom Hanc on 11/10/2008 02:49:59 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Well... (none / 0)

"Eugenics" is a point about incest. Big brain tumors could be caught by doctors. Bad health laws, no regular checks? And who is to blame? Other humans.

Not having sex in marriage was perfectly normal for ages. And still is. Why not? Especially in Christianity. Because Chistianity is marriage between humankind and Christ.

 

by Hexer78 on 11/10/2008 03:15:09 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Wow (none / 0)
Just wow. I wish Cenk was reading this, his reaction would be entertaining.

by Tom Hanc on 11/10/2008 03:29:17 PM EST

[ Parent ]
you still don't get it (none / 0)

What about that makes incest not permissible?

Our law, secular as it is.

by mr science on 11/10/2008 03:49:02 PM EST

[ Parent ]
No (none / 0)
No offense, but that's a bad analogy.  We can have a reasonable disagreement about which natural desires are ultimately good or bad overall for society (for example the desire for a man to spread his seed with every reasonably attractive woman he sees, etc.).

But one of the top 2 reasons people give for being anti-gay is that they believe it's a CHOICE. That's why many dismiss the analogy to the civil rights movement, because they say "you can't CHOOSE your race or gender".

So if homosexuality/bisex uality exists in the animal kingdom it's pretty much a trump-card to that dumb argument. Because again, the animals aren't watching Will & Grace, they aren't being molested and they aren't trying to impress people at the bar/party.

My point is that animal behavior knocks out one of the main arguments against homosexuality/gay marriage. Now, if opponents still want to say it's wrong because it's in the bible and because it hurts society/marriage, fine.

I mean, it's NOT fine, it's completely idiotic, but at least the argument can be re-framed in the correct context, i.e. that being gay is not a choice.

by Tom Hanc on 11/10/2008 12:04:24 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Not my religion (none / 0)
Well, Protestantism is based on stupid ideas, so dumb arguments are expected. But I am Orthodox, and I acknowledge the existance of sin without choice. Like sinful thoughts of homosexual intercourse. But actually having homosex is a choice. And a sin.

by Hexer78 on 11/10/2008 12:40:11 PM EST

[ Parent ]
You're joking (none / 0)
right?


If you accept that being gay is not a choice, why would God make people gay and then expect them to never act on those desires?


More importantly, do you think that your personal religious beliefs should be imposed on others, i.e. that gay marriage should be banned?

by Tom Hanc on 11/10/2008 01:27:54 PM EST

[ Parent ]
This is the choice for you (none / 0)

People have all sorts of desires. Including killing, raping, robbing. Some of them should be acted on (eating, sleeping, etc), some - should not. And if you are completely unable to do something bad, no one can praize you for doing something good. This is the whole point of free will and choice. Humans are not robots.

As for me, no, I don't think so. I think that civil marriage should be completely separated from religious marriage (as it is in Russia) and regulated according to the democratic will of the population. People vote against same-sex? Tough luck.

by Hexer78 on 11/10/2008 02:11:34 PM EST

[ Parent ]
HUGE problem with your analogy (none / 0)
Killing, raping and robbing ALL involve at least one unwilling person. You are doing harm to others, which is universally frowned upon.

By contrast two consenting adults having sex and or loving each other does NOT harm anyone.


Try Again.

by Tom Hanc on 11/10/2008 02:18:00 PM EST

[ Parent ]
It depends (none / 0)
First of all, people in homosex relationship enable each other's sinful nature. Which is bad for them. Second, if they are open, they enable someone else's sinful nature. Which is also bad. Like if mafia don lives large showing that life of crime pays better than life of honest work. Because you see his cars and houses, but not his empty soul. Humans are not islands. We influence each other in many ways.

by Hexer78 on 11/10/2008 02:59:17 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Sinful? (none / 0)
Sin is an arbitrary or if you prefer, religion based concept.

Murder, rape and robbery are wrong inside OR outside of religion. These things are universally considered to be bad for obvious reasons and they involve harming an unwilling being.

Clearly consenting adults do not fall into this category. If you try to argue that they do indirectly harm others it begs the question of what else we should ban due to indirect harm.

Should we ban sex outside of marriage? Should we make cheating on a spouse a federal crime? Should we ban divorce?

It's an easy and logical to argue that these things (infidelity and divorce) are FAR greater threats to marriage and the family than gay marriage could ever hope to be.

Yet our politicians and religious leaders dare not push to make these things into law. Why? Because almost no one would support them. A lot of these judgement religious types only support things that in no way effect them. 

You know, men who can't get pregnant being against abortion, or women past child-bearing age. Or gay marriage...if you don't want to marry someone of the same sex then great, you don't have to.

But ask these same hypocrites if we should ban divorce and make cheating a crime, they'll laugh at the absurdity. After all, *they* might cheat someday and *they* might want to get divorced someday. God forbid they ever vote on 'moral' issues that actually effect them.

by Tom Hanc on 11/10/2008 03:14:47 PM EST

[ Parent ]
There is a difference (none / 0)

Should we punish people for gay sex? It depends. If they do it somewhere in private, no. If they do it in the middle of some street, yes. Rules for private and public are different. And gay marriage is as public as it gets.

So the point is not "should we kill guys for sex". The point is "should we accept gay relationship as a perfectly normal, moral and protection worthy union equal to heterosexual marriage". Which is as enabling as it gets. Like selling sniper rifles to guys with tumors.

by Hexer78 on 11/10/2008 03:42:00 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Nonsense (none / 0)
If ANYONE has sex in public it's against the law, what's your point? Gay or straight you can't do it.

Also, *you* don't have to accept anyone's marriage, that's the point. You don't have to accept a long term marriage between to loving men or two loving women. You don't have to accept two straight people getting married on a whim the first night they meet while drunk in Las Vegas.

You don't have to accept someone getting married for the 3rd, 4th or 8th time.

In all of these cases, it's really none of your (or my) business.

And really, you're comparing selling guns to gay marriage? What are you so afraid of? What are the specific negative effects of gay marriage on YOU?

by Tom Hanc on 11/10/2008 04:07:05 PM EST

[ Parent ]
No, no (none / 0)

The whole point is about accepting. US government provides 1138 benefits to married couples. Including things like assumption of spouse's pension. Which is giving out public money. The whole point of gay marriage is reaping all those benefits (even more on state level). Financed by public and corporate money (insurance coverage etc). So this is everybody's business. 

And yes, guns just kill bodies. Sins kill souls. 

And I'm not afraid of gay marriage. It's not a problem in Russia. 

by Hexer78 on 11/10/2008 04:40:05 PM EST

[ Parent ]
No, no is right (none / 0)
Gays make up a small percentage of the country, and even if marriage were legal, the number to actually get married would be TINY compared to straight marriages.

If you're worried about people getting married just to take advantage of the financial benefits, you're focus is misplaced. Really, we should worry about "marriage fraud" that would come from (my rough guess estimate) at most 10% of marriages (I'm being very generous and I doubt it'd more than 5%, if that).

If you're truly concerned urge people to focus on changing the tax benefits for marriage in general.

And if it's true that sins kill souls, why not (again) make cheating on a spouse a federal crime? Why not ban divorce? Hell, make sex outside of marriage a crime too while you're at it.

Explain why you would be against such laws. Also explain why those "sins" are not equal to being an active homosexual?

All sins are equal in the eyes of God, therefore you have no argument. Especially since we don't live in a theocracy, we live in a Democracy with a secular founding document and a secular system of laws.

by Tom Hanc on 11/10/2008 04:45:03 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Again and again (none / 0)

I am not for punishing people who destroy their souls. It is punishing in itself. And I am not for overloading criminal courts with complex but puny crimes.

I am against saying that sin is okay. And protected by the law. And payed by someone else's money. Imagine that after Levinsky debacle all papers would have headlines like "You go, big guy! F@ck them all! Show Hillary some real infidelity!".

And do you remember all that bullshit about "greed is good"? Well, greed is good for some people but bad for the economy. Same thing with homosex. Good for some people, bad for the morals in general.

by Hexer78 on 11/10/2008 05:19:18 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Specifically (none / 0)
what harm does homosexuality do? Please, be specific.

Don't tell me that the Bible says it's wrong, explain *why* you think it says that in the Bible and why it's wrong.

And try to explain why those who don't share your particular interpretation of the bible should accept your argument.

I'm waiting.

by Tom Hanc on 11/10/2008 05:23:10 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Quite simple (none / 0)

In Christianity marriage has two points:

1) Children. Nuff said. 

2) The school of love and understanding. Men and women are quite different (and they should be). Therefore understanding and loving each other is a great school of meeting with The Other. Someone totally different, strange and mysterious - yet someone who completes you. This is a great practice for the future meeting with God. If it's done right. 

In homosexual pairs people are not that different. Even if they try. It's all about "you feel like I feel". Nice, but shallow.

by Hexer78 on 11/10/2008 05:46:55 PM EST

[ Parent ]
BS (none / 0)
1. Ok, so then we should start testing heterosexual couples to make sure they're fertile. If they're not, they can't get married according to your logic. Hey, marriage=kids right? While we're at it we should ban old people (women past menopause, etc.) from getting married.

2. You're pulling that out of your ass. What you're saying is not spelled out in any reputable study from psychology/biology/physiolo gy OR in the Bible. It's completely unsubstantiated opinion. Do you even know any committed gay couples? I'm guessing you don't.

It's absurd and made up, period.

by Tom Hanc on 11/10/2008 06:05:05 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Not that simple (none / 0)

Sex in marriage should carry the possibility of conception. It is incomplete without the ability to evolve in something bigger. Homosex is fruitless by default.

Quoting Bible is the Protestant way. Real Christianity views Bible as a launchpad, not as a playpen. You've asked for my understanding. This is my understanding. Based on reading numerous modern and old Christian books and also on my own experience.

Of course, you could also go with more standard idea of family as a Trinity, but it's more complicated to describe.

by Hexer78 on 11/10/2008 06:33:55 PM EST

[ Parent ]
So (none / 0)
Married people should't have oral/anal sex?  Good luck putting that one on the ballot...

by Spencer on 11/10/2008 06:37:45 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Therefore shouldn't we...? (none / 0)

Outlaw marriages involving women above child bearing age.

Outlaw marriage where one partner is infertile (either by choice or involuntarily.)

Dissolve marriages that do not bear children within a certain period of time.

by ProfRich on 11/10/2008 09:31:28 PM EST

[ Parent ]
hey Homophobe (none / 0)
is it ok for gay people to show affection in public?  What about kissing.. or holding hands.

Or should all gay people hide their orientation  in a country wide don't ask don't tell type situation.


by Chinese Democracy on 11/10/2008 06:36:30 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Well... (none / 0)
In Russia it's not. Not a crime, but not ok.

by Hexer78 on 11/10/2008 06:52:45 PM EST

[ Parent ]
on the sciency side... (none / 0)

there are also scientific studies which are finding genetic evidence of homosexuality.  One comes to mind about finding X-linked (X-chromosome) homosexuality in a particular family.  Hormones also play a role too, b/c in order to be mentally wired to be a male, you need estrogen expressed in the central nervous system as a fetus.  Female babies do not receive this early estrogen.  There's also a gene in fruit flies called fruitless, which when mutated causes male fruit flies to court only male flies and not female flies.

So beyond behaviour one sees in nature, there's genetic evidence coming forth about the wiring process during development w/ other potential genetic clues which show that homosexuality derives from nature, not nurture.

by DocZee on 11/10/2008 05:18:55 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Yes (none / 0)
That too. You're exactly right.

by Tom Hanc on 11/10/2008 05:21:11 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I read something awhile ago (none / 0)

about mothers who give birth to a lot of sons.  If I remember right, the youngest sons get less testosterone, and they end up having a higher chance of being gay.  I guess the female body starts to compensate the trend of extra testosterone by building up more and more estrogen each time.  I know that's incredibly vague and over simplified, and I can't remember where I saw it, but that's my contribution. 

And with that, I take a small bow.

Random thought on the "being gay is a choice issue":  Isn't it possible for people to be born between the two sexualities, and make a conscious choice to identify as one or the other?  I personally know someone who says that they've done just that.  It's not a choice for everyone obviously, but it always irks me when people claim that it's 100% one way or the other.  There's nuance in almost everything...

But the broader point is; does it really matter if it's a choice or not?  In a free society, why can't someone make that choice?

by Spencer on 11/10/2008 05:56:36 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I've also seen studies (none / 0)

about women who are generally more fertile (not just having more sons) having a higher likelihood of producing homosexual children.

by Spencer on 11/10/2008 06:04:24 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Spencer (none / 0)
It may not be "100%" of the time, but it's damn close based on the available evidence and the simple fact that choosing to be despised and hated by a good number of people (while fighting your natural biological urges) doesn't make any kind of rational sense.

To your point about extremism and absolutes, here is the line I love to use: All things in moderation...including moderation.

In other words, while life is not 100/0, it's almost never 50/50. And if it's 80/20 I'm sure as hell not going to pretend it's equal.

:)

by Tom Hanc on 11/10/2008 06:16:10 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I agree 100% (none / 0)

My point is mainly that I don't give a fuck what people choose (or what they're biologically predisposed to), and I don't really understand why anyone does.

And I'm not saying that it's at all equal.  I have no doubt that most gays didn't choose it.  I'm just saying, some people do.  Covering all my bases I guess.

My favorite point on choosing to be gay comes from Alan Colmes, of all people.  When he gets calls from the "homosexuality is a choice" crowd, he always asks them "If it's a choice to be gay, could you have chosen it?".  The caller will generally say no, and undercut their whole argument.  But if they say yes, then you just say "Well I couldn't choose it... because I'm straight."  It's hilarious how people who think it's a choice could never ever admit that it might be possible that they would be gay.  It's sort of a juvenile technique, but so is their argument, so...  That was random.

And on the "choosing to be despised and hated by a good number of people" point; I didn't choose to love Rosario Dawson, but I'm still regularly beaten down for it.  Maybe I'm just a glutton for punishment.  I await the gaggle of apologies I'll be receiving from all of you now.  ;)

by Spencer on 11/10/2008 06:35:59 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Hmm, good point (none / 0)
I forgot to give Cenk a verbal beating for moving Dawson to #1...now THAT is an abomination that threatens the heterosexuals!

by Tom Hanc on 11/10/2008 07:02:19 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Ihavenobias this (none / 0)
has zero to do with this thread ( I think its pretty much played out)  But I cant find the thread we where talking about bailing out the Auto industry.

I found this today

I guess Obama is going to put a caveat on the money he would give the auto industry to bail them out.

Mr. Obama has signaled to the automakers and the unions that his support for short-term aid now, and long-term assistance once he takes office, is contingent on their willingness to agree to transform their industry to make cleaner, more energy-efficient vehicles.

I didn't think he would.. oh well  Im wrong once a yr  this must be it lol


by Chinese Democracy on 11/11/2008 12:32:01 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Good (none / 0)
Thanks for the update.

by Tom Hanc on 11/11/2008 12:09:09 PM EST

[ Parent ]
From the lips (err...fingertips) of a geneticist.. (none / 0)

In large families, homosexuals were likelier to have been born second, third, fourth or later, and were far likelier to have older male siblings rather than older sisters.
The study, led by Francesca Corna, says this adds statistical support to hypotheses about possible genetic causes for homosexuality, although it did not investigate homosexuality in women.

Previous research, carried out among gay brothers, suggests a link between homosexuality and a genetic sequence called Xq28 on one of the arms of the X chromosome, one of the chromosomes that determines sex. Here's a link to one of the scientific studies on the issue.  Or, you can go to www.pubmed.com and type in Xq28 and homosexuality and find a plethora of genetic studies n the subject.

Here's a quote from the founding study on this subject: "The role of genetics in male sexual orientation was investigated by pedigree and linkage analyses on 114 families of homosexual men. Increased rates of same-sex orientation were found in the maternal uncles and male cousins of these subjects, but not in their fathers or paternal relatives, suggesting the possibility of sex-linked transmission in a portion of the population. DNA linkage analysis of a selected group of 40 families in which there were two gay brothers and no indication of nonmaternal transmission revealed a correlation between homosexual orientation and the inheritance of polymorphic markers on the X chromosome in approximately 64 percent of the sib-pairs tested. The linkage to markers on Xq28, the subtelomeric region of the long arm of the sex chromosome, had a multipoint lod score of 4.0 (P = 10(-5), indicating a statistical confidence level of more than 99 percent that at least one subtype of male sexual orientation is genetically influenced." ~ Science, 1993.

This one is for you Spencer:

Research published in the mid-1990s bred the theory, strongly contested by some, that the male fetus presents an antigen, a molecule that triggers a response from the woman's immune system.
With each successive male birth, the mother is successively immunized against this antigen and the subsequent chemical change in the uterus has an effect on the sexual differentiation of the fetus, according to this idea.

An architect of this hypothesis, Canadian scientist Ray Blanchard (again, you can read nto hs research at pubmed.com), has calculated that each additional older brother increases the odds of homosexuality in the next male by some 33 percent...
"While acknowledging that the Nature versus Nurture debate about homosexuality will continue to rage, the authors believe they may have resolved one of the enigmas about homosexuality."

I like to think that sexuality is like eye color, most have brown eyes, but some have blue and green due to genetic variances accumulated over the years.  If people would not fear the differences in others, the world would be a better place. Time to hold hands and sing kum-by-ya.

There's my two cents.

by DocZee on 11/10/2008 07:28:40 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I'll join you in song. (none / 0)
Thanks for the actual facts there.  That sounds like the exact study I was talking about (albeit retardedly from my non-geneticist fingers)

by Spencer on 11/10/2008 07:44:26 PM EST

[ Parent ]
def not retarded (none / 0)

It's great you remembered that story in the news awhile back, I totally forgot about it and had to go back and read about it.

It's really depressing that people don't understand that this world, and this country especially, isn't of one religious persuasion.  The greatest point of this humongous thread is that we are able to have it and freely express ourselves.

It's a great thing. 

by DocZee on 11/10/2008 08:55:16 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Born perfect (none / 0)
Most intelligent people know it's not a choice or aquired taste, can't be spread or "cured" but if you try explaining logic to many Christians you will have no luck.
They can't conciede god makes 'faulty' people, and if they did then their whole reason to suppress the lifestyle becomes irrelavent.

by Maverick on 11/10/2008 07:56:31 AM EST

[ Parent ]
No, no, no (none / 0)
God doesn't make people faulty. People make people faulty. In many ways. Including genetical. Adam's sin passes down from generation to generation.

by Hexer78 on 11/10/2008 12:00:47 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Except when he does (none / 0)
Like that guy who shot all of those innocent people at the University Of Texas, the sniper.

When they cut him open they found a tumor pressing against his amygdala, a part of the brain that processes fear and negative emotions.

Would he have made the "choice" to shoot those people if not for the huge brain tumor? I doubt it. More importantly I hardly call that an intelligent or perfect design.

by Tom Hanc on 11/10/2008 01:41:06 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Not that simple (none / 0)

Was he created from nothing? No. He was the result of genetic recombination. Plus nurturing. Plus medical help (or lack thereof). God gave him immortal soul. Which was connected to the faulty body "made" by other humans (and later changed by himself). This design is perfect, but it is used imperfectly. In fact, religion is a manual for humankind . If you don't do things according to the manual, don't expect anything to run smoothly.

Than again, killing evil and scary things in self-defence is not that good. According to Jesus. So that sniper is not excused by his illness.

by Hexer78 on 11/10/2008 02:31:50 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Genetic Recombination? (none / 0)
Where did you get that from? You know the Texas sniper shootings happened in the 70's BTW.

And no, humans are NOT perfectly designed. Think about how many people need corrective lenses for their sight (through NO fault of their own). Think about how many people have bad knees and bad backs.

I'd say in many respects humans are very poorly designed. We breath and ingest liquids and solids through the same hole...that's incredibly stupid and has led to so much completely unnecessary choking over the centuries).

The examples I listed above are just a small sample.

by Tom Hanc on 11/10/2008 02:39:27 PM EST

[ Parent ]
actually it was August 1,1966 (none / 0)

by ProfRich on 11/10/2008 03:08:40 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Figures (none / 0)
you would have that memorized.

:)

by Tom Hanc on 11/10/2008 03:30:10 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I looked it up (none / 0)

But I knew it was per-1970s.  My parents were both down on or near campus at the time (they were students).

One of my parent's best friends hid behind a trash can until Whitman was killed.

I one briefly met the hero (Hispanic police officer who killed Whitman.

So yeah, I have a general understanding of the affair.

I got Chicago covered too.  My mom was at the 1968 Chicago riots.  But slow down, Ken.  It wasn't like that.  Her dad was a delegate.  She was a teenage kid in the hotel watching the riots from the balcony.

by ProfRich on 11/10/2008 04:35:39 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Wow, that's crazy (none / 0)
They must have been terrified.

BTW, Dave should make this thread featured, it's piping hot.

by Tom Hanc on 11/10/2008 04:37:31 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Perfection is not stale (none / 0)

Every fixed design is bad. But Universe is evolving, changing. And this is perfect. Not because we have perfect eyes, but because we evolved to develop lenses, microscopes etc. And even to fix eyes.

Creativity 1.0 is to make something nice. Creativity 2.0 is to make tools to build all sorts of things. And Creativity 777.0 is to make evolving Universe with evolving tools and evolving sentient beings who could use those tools and make their own. This is the perfection of changing imperfections.

by Hexer78 on 11/10/2008 04:21:25 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Hmm... (none / 0)
Genetic recombination is done in nature. I am talking about conception. ^_^

by Hexer78 on 11/10/2008 05:21:30 PM EST

[ Parent ]
you have to remember... (none / 0)

It was the superstitious Christians (and others of course, but I feel like picking on the christians) who didn't understand what an eclipse was and thought it was god's warning that an awful event was going to occur.

The bible was written in a primative time when society and roles for men and women were primative.  The whole world was mysterious and the elements were pretty harsh.  These people needed a way of understanding what was happening around them (i.e. genesis, revelations, romans).  This is not unlike the ancient greeks making up their mythology to explain the world, and today we scoff and their fabrication and mental stretches.  Wait another thousand years and we'll see how people view today's religions.

by DocZee on 11/10/2008 07:37:34 PM EST

[ Parent ]
oh and... (none / 0)

"Nothing in life is to be feared. It is only to be understood"

~Dr. Marie Curie

 

(poor luck with the radiation thing)

by DocZee on 11/10/2008 07:42:58 PM EST

[ Parent ]
God doesnt make faulty people (none / 0)
God made me perfectly gay


by Chinese Democracy on 11/11/2008 12:33:38 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Gay or not gay... (none / 0)
Marriage and sex preference are totally different concepts. A lot of gay folks are heterosexually married. With children etc. Actually, marriage is safer when it is not based on sexual attraction. Virgin Mary never had sex with her husband Joseph. Yet, they had a nice little marriage.

by Hexer78 on 11/10/2008 06:49:04 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Hexer 78 you need to stay in Russia (none / 0)
we don't need another right wing ass hole

just to clear a couple things up

Homosexuality is no more a "preference" than heterosexuality.

Who gives a rats ass why anyone gets married. The POINT is  gay men and women should enjoy the exact same rights and privileges as straight men and women.

Is that so hard to understand?

Now that you have all that right wing bull shit out of your system  

Lets talk about CIVIL RIGHTS
 not about pedophilia.. pedophiles definately harm others. gays are not pedophiles.. pedophiles are not gays.

not about marrying a tree.. if straight men are allowed to marry a tree in this country.. then so should gay men

Get the concept?

You seem wholly unqualified to discuss anything to do with civil liberties that's for damn sure. I think thats why you dont.
 


by Chinese Democracy on 11/10/2008 03:28:16 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Exactly! (none / 0)

Straight men have the right to marry women. Gay men also have the right to marry women. Total equality. Where is the problem?

My point is that American marriage concept is based on Christianity ideas. Like people have souls, trees - don't. In India folks think otherwise and they do marry trees. Or like marriage is between two persons. In many Muslim countries marriage is between one man and up to 4 women. Which is also arbitrary and faith-based. 

Therefore, if you want to have an actual secular marriage, you should either build it from ground up (as a complex civil union concept with all bells and whistles) or include in it ages-old constructs like polygamy. If you want to be the country for all sorts of people and religions. And than think about including something not so ages-old and well-developed as gay marriage. 

And of course all this should be done democratically. Via referendums and stuff.For the people by the people.

by Hexer78 on 11/10/2008 04:09:09 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Marriage (none / 0)
Much of the roots of marriage have nothing to do with this man, woman "bond", but rather relate to property rights, ownership, etc.

Of course it evolved over time (a good thing) and now it's time to evolve again. Just like how not all that long ago blacks and whites couldn't marry, and I'm sure religion was used to explain why that's how it ought to be.

Luckily enough people saw through that bullshit, despite the objections of others who thought interracial marriage was somehow wrong or immoral. I'm sure they said "if you can marry a black man what's next? Are you going to marry a tree" or some other absurd slippery slope argument.

Here we are again, except this time it's gays, not African Americans.

PS---Straight people can get married at city hall, no religion needed. Why can't go people go to city hall and get married and have the same rights? And if they found a priest (or whatever) willing to do it, what's the difference?

by Tom Hanc on 11/10/2008 04:26:19 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Not guilty (none / 0)
America had racist laws, Russia hadn't. We even had a Russian black general in XVIII century - Abraham Hannibal. His great-grandson was Russia's greatest poet Pushkin.

by Hexer78 on 11/10/2008 05:01:04 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Family Values (none / 0)

The following is an excerpt from WHY DARWIN MATTERS by Michael Shermer...

But more important, evolution explains family values and social harmony. Humans and other social mammals, including and especially apes, monkeys, dolphins, and whales, share a host of characteristics: attachment and bonding, cooperation and mutual aid, sympathy and empathy, direct and indirect reciprocity, altruism and reciprocal altruism, conflict resolution and peace-making, community concern and reputation caring, and awareness of and response to the social rules of the group. As a social primate species we evolved the capacity for positive moral values because they enhance the survival of both family and community. Evolution created these values in us, and religion identified them as important...

Human solidarity existed long before institutionalized religion. We would not have survived as a species without it.

by mr science on 11/10/2008 04:39:06 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Different thing (none / 0)

We are not talking about coexistance. We are talking about gay marriage in America. Which has two points:

1) Gay marriage is just as good and moral as the straight one. 

2) Give us all rights, money and benefits invented for straight marriage. And give us some children - we have trouble with having our own.

by Hexer78 on 11/10/2008 04:52:46 PM EST

[ Parent ]
What we're talking about (none / 0)

My point is that American marriage concept is based on Christianity ideas. Like people have souls, trees - don't.

What Shermer is saying is that Christianity and other religious concepts of human bonding, family, and community are evolutionarily based and inherent in our humanity. Not the other way around as you have asserted.

by mr science on 11/10/2008 05:02:51 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Not that simple (none / 0)
Yes, the idea of people living together is natural. But the American idea of marriage is much more exact and very Christian.

by Hexer78 on 11/10/2008 05:24:49 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Whats the problem? Your grasp on the obvious (none / 0)
There is no such thing as GAY MARRIAGE

Gays have always had the right to marry women

The correct term  is same sex marriage

Now that we have dispensed with that lame argument of yours

Back to the point.

The  government represents ALL the people and ALL  the people should enjoy the same rights. A class of people should not be singled out .

Here is another concept you don't seem to grasp

The purpose of the courts is to protect the ONE from the tyranny of the MANY..

If one person is being denied the same rights and privileges as everyone else. Its the duty of the court to right that wrong.

in the past blacks where not allowed to marry whites.  The courts stepped in and rectified that situation.

The courts already stepped in in California and struck down an anti same sex marriage ban  as unconstitutional. Hence prop 8

Prop 8  is on shaky legal ground and is going right back to the courts.

btw  What people do in India couldn't be any less relevant.


by Chinese Democracy on 11/10/2008 06:25:39 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Yeah, right (none / 0)
Anti-polygamy attitude is much more harmful than anti-gay attitude. Why those wonderful courts are not fixing it? Because their Christianity bias evolves in strange and illogical ways.

by Hexer78 on 11/10/2008 06:47:05 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Im not going to debate (none / 0)
What law is more or less harmful based on your opinion.

The  point is  same sex marriage is a civil rights issue.

What happens in Russia is meaningless and has nothing to do with American jurisprudence.


by Chinese Democracy on 11/11/2008 12:43:56 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Polygamy (none / 0)

is used war based societies.  It's a choice those societies make to balance out the ratio of men to women (since a lot of the men die in wars).  The downside is that it always ends up diminishing the role of women in the household.  Military technology has made polygamy in the modern world obsolete.  The same is obviously not true of homosexuality.  The correlation that you draw between the two is meaningless.

Especially since people made these EXACT SAME arguments against interracial marriage.

by Spencer on 11/10/2008 06:57:10 PM EST

[ Parent ]
are you KIDDING me??? (none / 0)

you think that biblical Mary and Joseph NEVER had sex during their marriage.  If that WAS the case, then technically it wouldn't have been CONSIDERED a real marriage, b/c it was never consummated.

But being...RATIONAL... you never think two people who love each other would ever have sex?  Seriously, your notion of reality is serverely lacking.

Religious fanatics have to lost realty or else they'll realize that believing in the bible word for word is absurd.

Here's a tip, don't drink the kool-aid.

by DocZee on 11/10/2008 05:30:28 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Real, schmeal... (none / 0)

I love my mom, she loves me, we don't have sex with each other. Not a problem.

As for the stories of happy virginal marriages, there are plenty of those in Histories of Orthodox Saints. 

by Hexer78 on 11/10/2008 05:55:28 PM EST

[ Parent ]
real, schmeal? (none / 0)

If you have any idea about history, during primative times (times you'd adore I'm sure), marriage was consummated by intercourse or else it wasn't considered a marriage.

Technically, even now in some cases you can get an annulment of marriage if you haven't consummated the marriage.

 

by DocZee on 11/10/2008 08:29:21 PM EST

[ Parent ]
In biblical times... (none / 0)

Virgin meant "never been married woman."  Not "woman who had never had sex" as it does now.

Therefore it was impossible for Joseph and Mary to be married and her to be a virgin.

It also makes the whole Jesus birth story make a lot more sense.

I am not sure how Mary came to be either black or hispanic and therefore an unwed teenage mom but the Bible requires a lot of faith.

by ProfRich on 11/10/2008 09:28:00 PM EST

[ Parent ]
gay (none / 0)

People should be free to marry an individual of another species as far as I'm concerned.

I'd marry Rachel Maddow, but she's much too cool for me.  I really love her black-rimmed glasses and tomboyish looks.  Plus, she would be so much fun to talk to!

by desertpear on 11/10/2008 01:17:42 AM EST

Pear (none / 0)
I thought it was only me.  I have a HUGE crush on her for the exact reasons you stated.  Although her show is not on here, I never miss it thanks to the internet and those amazing tubes.

ps She's too cool for me too.

by 1xx3xy on 11/10/2008 03:41:04 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Animals that swing both ways (none / 0)
I was under the impression that animals displaying homosexual behavior don't usually do so exclusively.  They are more bisexual than anything else.  If nature does use homosexuality as a population control in times of need, isn't humankind -- the most destructive force on planet Earth -- long overdue for some kind of homosexual explosion?  A "big, gay bang," if you will?

by OneHitKill on 11/10/2008 06:08:45 AM EST

[ Parent ]
it is (none / 0)
population control...

we're overbreeding, so nature puts a stop to it somehow, thus IT'S NATURAL

Chris

by chrisandyasemin on 11/10/2008 11:09:39 AM EST

[ Parent ]
in animals (none / 0)

I don't think it is population control. I think that it is more likely to just be a genetic difference that occurs in a small part of the population.  I think it is overstating it to say that this occurs "throughout the animal kingdom."  I'm not sure how many species it has been observed in, but I would bet that several of the instances have been in artificial environments like zoos.  Traits don't necessarily "serve a natural purpose."  Some traits just go along for the ride.  For example, domesticating animals tends to make them have more white coloration.  It's just some sort of link between the genes for domestication and coloration.

There seems to be evidence that homosexuality is genetic, but that psycho-social factors also play a part.

This is an interesting article about the possible role of evolution in homosexuality in human males.

by desertpear on 11/10/2008 03:12:06 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Animals (none / 0)

by Tom Hanc on 11/10/2008 03:27:12 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I'm just not sure (none / 0)

I would define all same-sex behavior in animals as "homosexual."&nbs p; After all, a lot of animals don't pair for life, but some do.  And animals may pair-bond with others of their sex for social reasons and not sexual reasons, even if the behavior looks to us as sexual.  But thanks for the links.  I'm just not sure how much it helps the gay marriage debate.

I think Chinese Democracy says exactly what I feel:  that all people, whether gay or straight should be treated as equals under the law.

by desertpear on 11/10/2008 04:12:11 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Well (none / 0)
How many straight people have had sex when they're not in the mood for various social and not sexual reasons? Or to acquire favor or goods (directly or indirectly), etc?

I'm not saying anything, I'm just sayin'. :)

Also consider that many religious types say that it's ok to be gay but NOT to act on it. Well, the "acting on it" is point, isn't it?

If that's the case it's irrelevant if we say the animals are homosexual, but rather that they are "acting" on something and engaging in sexual relations with members of the same sex. Why they do it isn't important in *this* context.

by Tom Hanc on 11/10/2008 04:18:11 PM EST

[ Parent ]
seems to me (none / 0)

Religion is the basis of any objection to same-sex marriage, whether the person realizes the source of their objections or not.

Animals don't have religion or have the same sense of moral codes that we do, so it's hard to compare the social structures of humans with animals.

 

by desertpear on 11/10/2008 08:11:38 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Right (none / 0)
And it follows that animals don't have the pressures that anti-gay types suggest "create" homosexuality, i.e. molestation and abuse, gay friendly media, wanting to impress boys at the bars/parties, etc.

PS---We might be wrong about animals not being religious.

by Tom Hanc on 11/10/2008 09:30:21 PM EST

[ Parent ]
the bibilical argument over homosexuality... (none / 0)
...comes from Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13

You shall not lie with a man as one lies with a woman, it is an abomination.

and

A man who lies with a man as one lies with a woman, they have both done an abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon themselves.

an abomination - ת ו ע ב ת

There are many long and painful arguments over interpretation of these two verses.

by sfinneganus on 11/10/2008 07:57:47 AM EST

Who cares (none / 0)
According to many Christian Fundamentalists, the Old Testament is irrelevant and it's for the Jews.

After all, isn't that what they say when you point out the many ridiculous lines in the Old Testament? You know, like how you should stone stubborn children to death. Or how eating shellfish (lobster anyone?) is an abomination against God.

Seriously, where is the push to ban eating Lobster? Aren't lobster eaters all sinning? After all, the OT doesn't say that gay sex is MORE of an abomination, so presumably they are equally bad.

Either the Old Testament is relevant or it's NOT relevant, you can't have it both ways. And if you pick and choose that means it's irrelevant, and it's just a Choose Your Own Adventure Religion that always for conveniently ignoring or paying attention to parts that suit you.

(Obviously when I say "you" I'm not speaking to you directly sfinneganus).

by Tom Hanc on 11/10/2008 01:34:01 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Law of the Levites (none / 0)

 [the bibilical argument over homosexuality... (none / 0)



...comes from Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13



You shall not lie with a man as one lies with a woman, it is an abomination.






Actually, this is Hebrew law.  It is also against orthodox Judaism to eat pork, or work on Saturday.  Do you obey all this law?  Why then single out the one law you like, simply because it makes you feel righteous?




by PrimaDonna on 11/10/2008 01:47:10 PM EST

[ Parent ]
actually (none / 0)
   1. The Bible only prohibits male-male homosexuality. Girl-girl action is apparently OK by Yahweh. So why can't women marry women?
   2. Leviticus 18:19, right next to Leviticus 18:22, says that "Also you shall not approach a woman to uncover her nakedness during her menstrual impurity," and goes on to say that those who have sex with menstruating women shall be cast out of their communities (Leviticus 18:29), just as those engaging in boy-boy action should be cast out. So, they will say, where is the national outcry of conservative Christians against menstrual sex? Where is the constitutional amendment to make menstrual sex unconstitutional?


by Chinese Democracy on 11/10/2008 03:16:23 PM EST

[ Parent ]
re: (none / 0)
I am only passing on what I have read in response to your

#1  The bible is silent on lesbianism from what I have read.  The justification I have seen argued against it is Leviticus 18:3,"Do not perform the practices of the land of Egypt."  Couple that with thousands of years of Rabbinic arguments(from guys like Maimonides) mostly against female-female relations...

#2 I am only passing on what little I know about the Jewish community and nothing about the Christian community.  I am just an average bubba communicating what I have read and you should probably go ask a respective minister or rabbi if you want an answer from a real authority of which I certainly am not.  Although not often mentioned, there is a mikvah in pretty much every Orthodox Jewish community in the world.  Those in the frum world do take niddah(literally separation) seriously.

by sfinneganus on 11/10/2008 04:34:14 PM EST

[ Parent ]
some things to think about (none / 0)

I haven't read this whole thread, but I have been following the post-8 reactions among different groups.  Acceptance of gay marriage is a given.  I think the only way to speed it up is to do better outreach and get smarter at campaigning for this right.  The anger at minorities (and even chickens!!) that came from some quarters after the election did not make the gay community any friends. 

This morning I read two articles that should provide food for thought for making progress on this issue. 

The Non-campaign to Beat Proposition 8

Weeks ago, it became clear that the No on Proposition 8 campaign had made a conscious decision not to conduct outreach to Latino and African American communities. Latinos ended up voting it down by a only a slight margin and African Americans voted for the ban overwhelmingly. The margin of victory for reestablishing family rights for gays and lesbians lies in these communities. The old fashioned top down campaigns waged by Equality California and No on 8 somehow missed the news that you cant win statewide in the Golden State by ignoring Latinos and African Americans and hoping that they just won't show up at the polls. Combined, Latinos and African Americans are about 24% of the vote in California. If a serious campaign had been waged in these communities, victory could have been assured by "moving the dial" by just a few percentage points in each.

Four Lessons Gay Marriage Activists Must Learn from Obama

Barack Obama showed that reaching beyond the base can yield big results. I haven't seen much evidence that the people who support gay marriage did much more than reach out to the people who already support gay marriage. In fact, rallies that have protesters yelling 'Mormon scum!' are negative outreach.

What if the gay community reached out to the black, Latino and Mormon communities that voted against gay marriage? What if instead of merely chalking up opposition to 'fear and hate' they went in churches and communities and started engaging in conversations? Would they meet with resistance? Of course. Would they see fear and hate? Absolutely. Changing a lifetime of thoughts and feelings isn't easy but the election showed us change does happen.

But African Americans, Latinos and Mormons all know firsthand the pain and frustration of discrimination. They have all seen their share of fear and hate. They know the value of marriage and family. The way to expose the things they have in common with their gay brothers and sisters is through dialog, not demonstration.

It may seem like an unlikely alliance but it's just as unlikely as getting a white working class guy to vote for a President whose middle name is Hussein.

by desertpear on 11/10/2008 03:19:09 PM EST

re: bias and primadonna (none / 0)
For the record, I do not support prop 8.  Further, I also deeply believe in human dignity for gay men and women in all communities.  My level of observance is not relevant to the discussion but I do have a faith I love very much.  It is an ancient one and often very slow to change.  I have on more than one occasion(and sometimes daily) cursed my faith for being downright "stupid" on a few issues.

My post was a response/reflection to Maverick's post above titled,"the bible says."  I thought he did not mention the two much discussed verses(at least in the Jewish Community).  I suspect there have been more than a few Christian ministers mention these two verses also.  Bias I have no idea how Christians view the old testament.  Many including myself in the Jewish community lack knowledge of Christian theology.

To answer you Primadonna, someone who is frum lives a halachic life.  It is not often I hear of an orthodox friend eating pork, breaking shabbos, or have relations with someone of the same sex.  

I spent 4 weeks in a community discussion about halacha in the conservative Jewish community.  The group was probably 70% or more lawyers.  Hence as seen in some of the posts above there was discussion of common and statuatory law.  Similarly, there was discussion of rabbinic vs Torah decree but also of an extremely wide variety of disciplines from hard science to psychology.  I am posting the link to the topics of discussion.  You can see all statements issued by the law committee starting in 1992(Joel Roth ''Homosexuality') and progressing forward.  Look in the section titled Interpersonal Relations.  The statements have changed significantly since 1992.  I hope they will continue.

http://www.rabbinicalassemb ly.org/law/teshuvot_public. html

by sfinneganus on 11/10/2008 03:47:44 PM EST

Norway joins the club (none / 0)
Congrats to Norway for legalizing gay marriage as of Jan 1st 2009.

It joins the following countries: Canada, Belgium, Spain, The Netherlands, South Africa. And the states Massachusetts and Connecticut.

Now I'm looking at you Sweden, Finland and Denmark, followed by France and Germany. All of these already have civil unions, but the discrimination has got to stop.

A big F YOU to the 3 Euro countries with bans http://en.wikipedia.org/wik i/Image:Same_sex_marriage_m ap_Europe_detailed.svg,
 unfortunately the picture for the US is vastly more bleak http://en.wikipedia.org/wik i/Image:Samesex_marriage_in _USA.svg look at all those bans. Land of the Free, except if you're gay it seems, then you're better of in Western-Europe :)

Just pissed off at Cali at the moment, what happened to freedom and equality Cali? It's one thing not to move forward, but it's more painful to move forward and then regress.

by callisto on 11/10/2008 05:50:28 PM EST

And oddly enough (none / 0)
Same sex marriage is legal in Mexico City

California already had a ban on same sex marriage. The California supreme court struck down the ban as unconstitutional .. hence the mormons started their Prop 8 attack machine.

Prop 8 is on shaky legal ground

Some minority communities in California have been listening to their fundamentalist preachers spreading hate for years. No one from the No on 8 side bothered to reach out to those communities.


by Chinese Democracy on 11/10/2008 06:33:32 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Totally forgot about Mexico City (none / 0)
good for them

hope the California Supreme Court also strikes down Prop 8

by callisto on 11/10/2008 06:48:26 PM EST

[ Parent ]
wow (none / 0)

I have read every comment on this page and I can't believe some of things people have said.  1. No person can ever make me believe that being gay is a chose because it's not.  You cannot help who you are sexually attracted to and you cannot help who you fall in love with. When my mom was in her early 20's she had a gay friend. She was the only person who knew he was gay and then he came out to his father. His father threw him out of the house and told him he never wanted to see him again. A month later my mothers friend killed himself. In his suicide note he wrote that he hated himself because he was gay. So, don't tell me gay men and women choose it.

2. These people who use the bible to justify their arguments are stupid. I am a christian and I have read the bible. Yes, it does say gay sex is an abomination and all that but it also says that you have to sacrifice animals and kill your children if they don't obey you and all kinds of crazy things. It also says that no person can judge another person. It also says you have to love everyone no matter if they're gay or what. So these christians that preach that being gay is a sin and they're going to burn in hell are sinning too. They're retarded.  You see most christians read the bible and then they ignore most of it and pick and choose what they want to believe.  After that they then try to impose their beliefs on everyone else.  Like I said I am a christian but that doesn't mean I'm going to go around telling everyone how to live their lives. I don't care what you do because guess what? It doesn't affect me or anyone I love.  If you are gay and you want to get married to your boyfriend or girlfriend I think that is great and that you should have that right. You are a citizen or the United States of America so of course you should be able to get married and have the same rights as people who are straight and married.

Oh and one last thing I really believe that alot of the people who hate gay people and don't want them to have any rights are actually gay and just hate them themselves.  My message to them is quit projecting your hate on everyone else and come out of the fucking closet already.  It's okay!!

by cgates007 on 11/13/2008 06:20:54 AM EST

you make a very valid pooint.... (none / 0)
....articles I have read cited numerous studies showing suicide was tragically much more frequent amoung gay men and women

by sfinneganus on 11/13/2008 02:42:51 PM EST

[ Parent ]
The bible also says (none / 0)
treat others as you would want to be treated


by Chinese Democracy on 11/13/2008 05:28:59 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Exactly (none / 0)
but have you ever heard one of these people that are trying to fight gay marriage ever say that? Hell No!

by cgates007 on 11/13/2008 06:08:15 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Homosexuality | 113 comments (113 topical, 0 hidden)
 Display: