« Insecticides...Bad? | Main | And Here Comes 2008 »
June 26, 2006
The Fraternal Order Birth Effect
So long as we're doing studies, here's more evidence that being gay is something you are, not something you become. It's long been known that your likelihood of homosexuality raises with each older brother -- often called the fraternal order birth effect. What wasn't known was whether that was a nature or a nurture effect. Well, problem solved. A new study looked at children raised outside their biological home, either in adopted, step, or otherwise altered environments. The effect, even separated from the presence of older brothers, remains. More evidence that anti-gay bigotry is punishment and hatred for an intrinsic characteristic, no different than sexism or racism in nature.
June 26, 2006 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/19450/5189305
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Fraternal Order Birth Effect:
Comments
Ezra,
What you are asking your reader to buy into, but are unwilling to say is that homosexuality is immutable, like the other examples you give of race or sex.
There are two problems with this:
1)There is mounds of evidence of people changing from straight to gay and even back again. This doesn't happen with race or sex (at least without major surgery).
2)Race and Sex are not self-defined. The characteristic of race or sex is objective but when it comes to homosexuality, you are saying that it is self-defined.
I just think this is one of those memes that the left has thrown around so much that many accept it without going through the logical exercises simply because they want it to be true so badly.
Posted by: Fred Jones. | Jun 26, 2006 11:31:51 AM
Whether or not it's inborn is irrelevant. A lot of conservatives will admit they think it's inborn. They just think that people should stay in the closet.
Posted by: Tammy | Jun 26, 2006 11:42:09 AM
There is mounds of evidence of gay people allowing themselves to believe they had been 'cured', then later reverting to practices more compatible with their natural same-sex orientation. That's not the same thing as "changing from straight to gay and...back again."
Posted by: Tom Hilton | Jun 26, 2006 12:14:45 PM
Fred,
Just because you say it's so doesn't make it so.
You actually examined this evidence or did you believe what someone else told you because he said that he was conservative?
Posted by: Dr. Squid | Jun 26, 2006 12:45:30 PM
If homosexuality is an inborn characteristic, then Fred is a bigot, just like a racist. If homosexuality is a chosen behavior, then Fred is a bigot, just like someone who hates Jews or Muslims.
Either way, Fred can't justify his bigotry with any neutral criteria -- he just hates gay people.
Posted by: paperwight | Jun 26, 2006 12:46:43 PM
This fits in my family. The third of four boys is gay.
Posted by: Rick | Jun 26, 2006 12:48:29 PM
paperwight has it exactly right.
I'd like to point out that logic chopping a la fred doesn't begin to get to the real issue which is--why should we discriminate against any person, regardless of the shape/color/design of their topology when it comes to civil rights? I see no distinction between race, religion, or sexual orientation because *none of them* are a proper basis for discimination/attack. It doesn't matter to me whether "gayness" is inborn or chosen because it simply *doesn't matter to me* what other, consenting adults choose to do with their bodily orifices or their personal relations. Why it matters to Fred and the other bigots is simply beyond me. The only thing we can say for certain in this world is that people who want to legislate/punish/attack other people for real or fancied differences in private matters are sick, sick, busybodies with way too much time on their hands and way too much invested in other people's private lives.
aimai
Posted by: aimai | Jun 26, 2006 12:51:28 PM
So exactly what have I said that was bigoted, other than examining the evidence and commenting? Is anyone that comments a bigot unless they agree with you?
Is that how you suppress opposition?
Posted by: Fred Jones. | Jun 26, 2006 12:57:03 PM
I have to take the tak that though I believe homosexuality is an inborn trait it doesn't matter. Religion is a choice and we shouldn't discriminate because of that. Why should we discriminate due to sexuality?
I don't neccesarily buy into the siblings argument - especialy when the evidence in this case is a study with what amounts to a very tiny test group. But I don't think it matters. Most homosexuals I know come from diverse backgrounds with diverse upbringing and knew early on that they were gay. As society has come to decriminalise alternative sexuality and become more tolerant it becomes far more evident that ones sexuality is genetic.
Posted by: DuWayne | Jun 26, 2006 1:03:21 PM
You're not a bigot, Fred? Prove it. Do you support legislation that would equalize homosexuals with heteros in the eyes of the law?
Posted by: Dan | Jun 26, 2006 1:04:37 PM
You're not a bigot, Fred? Prove it.
First of all, you're asking me to prove a negative. Secondly, I was commenting on Ezra's thought process in my original post (see first post on this thread). Thirdly, I don't believe you don't want to rationally discuss any of this. Instead, you wish to find articles and devices that support your prejudiced and bigoted views.
Now, if you are trulyl open and wish to discuss this rationally, then let's do so.
Posted by: Fred Jones. | Jun 26, 2006 1:09:48 PM
Hmm, I think Tom and Fred are both partially wrong. Fred is mistaken in believing that those of us who support gay rights and gay marriage need homosexuality to be entirely predetermined to support our views. Speaking for myself, thats not necessary at all. I don't believe that heterosexuality is somehow inherently better or more right than homosexuality. So even if it turned out there was no genetic or inborn element at all, that wouldn't change my beliefs about the need for equal treatment. Its possible to make more nuanced arguments, however. Genes and fetal chemistry don't necessarily predetermine everything as I understand it, sometimes they only determine tendencies.
I tend to believe that a certain number of people have tendencies so strong that they are almost certain to be either gay or straight but some other percentage of people end up somewhere in the middle and could go either way, or both.
At any rate I always found the idea that people have a "choice" about whether to be gay, ludicrous. Attraction and love are complicated things. Who can say that they really have a choice about who they are attracted to anyway? The causes of attraction aren't really all that relevant to the debate. I believe that all people have the right to pursue happiness to the extent that they can do so without hurting anyone else, and I believe taht being able to have a chance to pursue love (and lust) is an inherent part of happiness. Isn't that a strong enough argument on its own?
Posted by: Gabe | Jun 26, 2006 1:15:02 PM
Jeez Fred, just answer the man's question. Do you support equal rights for gays or not? You have said about a hundred times on this forum that you do not. Are you suddenly neutral now? Answer.
Posted by: sprocket | Jun 26, 2006 1:15:16 PM
The question of whether gays have 'equal rights' or not is the wrong question and badly worded. They do have equal rights. The question is about legislation explicitly barring discrimination against gays due solely to their orientation.
I no more have the right at this moment to marry another man then does any gay couple have the right to do so. Gays have all the normal protections against discrimiation that I have, that being for race, religion, and handicap. They do have the same rights as you and I, to speech, Kba, et al.
What they don't have specific is protections for people deciding protected actions based upon their orientation. In addition they would like to now explicitly affirm and legalize same sex marriages.
Its not really just a semantic argument that Im making. It gets to the basis of the motivation for straight people to care.
If its about equal protection under the law and the right for everyone to pursue happiness then it matters to everyone. If its about explicitly legalizing gay marriage and thats all, and getting the flamer down the street a good corporate job then straights have much less of a stake in the whole thing other then to play to their baser reactions.
Its going to make the lawbooks awfully large if we have to explicitly enable every marginalized group and minority equal treatment. Especially when it should be taken care of in the 'all men are created equal' clause. It would be nice if we in America, the supposed 'land of the free' would start learning to live like we believed in that slogan.
Posted by: david b | Jun 26, 2006 1:34:10 PM
david b: I no more have the right at this moment to marry another man then does any gay couple have the right to do so.
This is why I see prohibition of same-sex marriage as a gender equality issue rather than a sexual-orientation issue. When you go to the courthouse for a marriage license, you aren't asked if you love the person, if you're going to fuck the person, if you're going to make babies with the person, if you're gay, straight, or orange. All they care about is the genders.
If Alice, Bob, and Charlie go down to the courthouse together, and Bob asks for a license to marry Charlie, and is declined, then Alice asks for a license to marry Charlie, and is granted, that's gender discrimination against Bob. It can't be anything else, because the court clerk doesn't know anything else.
Posted by: Hamilton Lovecraft | Jun 26, 2006 1:40:01 PM
Fred: What you are asking your reader to buy into, but are unwilling to say is that homosexuality is immutable, like the other examples you give of race or sex.
Race and sex aren't immutable.
Posted by: Hamilton Lovecraft | Jun 26, 2006 1:42:17 PM
You have said about a hundred times on this forum that you do not.
What I have stated about a hundred times on this forum is that it is indeed a free country and, as such, you are free to be just as queer as you please. Upon that we agree.
Many of the "rights" you would like to assign to this group are not inconsistant with other groups that share the same properties that you use in your decision such as polygaminsts. These decisions are not by any means a foregone conclusion and are up for much debate.....and that is what I would like to do.
Posted by: Fred Jones. | Jun 26, 2006 1:45:16 PM
Sorry, let me clarify what I mean before Fred accuses me of believing that people can change their genetics: For legal and social purposes, race and sex are mutable.
Posted by: Hamilton Lovecraft | Jun 26, 2006 1:45:47 PM
I'm confused about your argument David. For one thing, constutionally, the courts have rejected the argument you are making in Loving v. Virginia. They haven't extended the logic to gay marriage yet, but it certainly applies. Virigina argued that miscegneation laws were constutional because they applied equally to blacks and whites and the court said no dice.
You don't want to marry a man, you are allowed to marry a person you love and gain all the rights that marriage entails. A gay person is not allowed to do this.
And please lets not hear the polygamy argument. Its the ultimate red herring.
Posted by: Gabe | Jun 26, 2006 1:46:43 PM
Gays have all the normal protections against discrimiation that I have, that being for race, religion, and handicap. They do have the same rights as you and I, to speech, Kba, et al.
No they do not. In some states or municipalities they do but in many more places they have absolutely no protections from discrimination. Less than half of the country protects teh rights of gays against discrimination in fact.
The marriage issue is , for many gays, not an issue of marriage per say but an issue of the rights of them and their partners to have basic rights such as hospital visitations, shared insurance benifits and continuity of family. In many places if a gay couple is raising a family and teh partner with custody dies the children become wards of the state because it is illegal for the surviving partner to share in custody - for an example.
Personaly I believe that the state should get out of the mariage business and move to civil unions. Abolishing the legal status of marriage removes much of the impetuous behind discrimination of partners rights for gay cuoples.
Posted by: DuWayne | Jun 26, 2006 1:55:06 PM
Let's pretend the debate is over for a second. Do you support laws that would equalize homosexuals?
Posted by: Dan | Jun 26, 2006 2:02:00 PM
Many of the "rights" you would like to assign to this group are not inconsistant with other groups that share the same properties that you use in your decision such as polygaminsts.
People like to use this polygomy argument like discriminating against polygomists is somehiow justified too. I wuold love to heat someone explain just what the hell is wrong with polygomy or how it harms society.
I just don't see why we should make any relationship or practice that is harming no one else (or torturing animals) illegal.
Posted by: DuWayne | Jun 26, 2006 2:03:06 PM
Fred -- I'm curious, do you support civil unions, in order to equalize the ability of folks to enter into contractual agreements on inheritance, visitation, etc? Which is to say, is your problem with extending the word "marriage" or with the benefits marriage provides?
Posted by: Ezra | Jun 26, 2006 2:08:26 PM
Is my impression correct that the birth order factor only applies to male gays? If so, that should be stated clearly. I've had the impression for some time that male homosexuality is clearly a primarily inborn trait, but that the picture for women is more complicated. In any case, I think it's risky and logically questionable to build the anti-bigotry case on whether or not homosexuality is inborn. Why is bigotry justified if it isn't? Why is someone else's sex life any of mine (or the government's) business?
Posted by: Rebecca Allen, PhD, ARNP | Jun 26, 2006 2:56:18 PM
the evidence supporting biology as a large, if not defining factor, in sexual orientation is growing pretty large. Let's list a few
a) birth order studies
b) twin studies
c) the sex studies with drosphilla
d) the fact we know of 400 plus species in which sexual pairing can be same sex
e) that homosexuality appears in every society in human history- challenge you to name one where it hasn't appeared
f)the lesbian studies involving the linkage between a gene involved in particular movement of finger -
g) hormonal studies
these are just off top my head. There are others. If you don't believe in the science, that's because you don't want to believe- musth like the whole silly intelligent design various proven laws of evolution.
this comes from a guy who hasn't given up his beliefs but understands that there is a such thing as science too
Posted by: akai | Jun 26, 2006 3:18:30 PM
Why is someone else's sex life any of mine (or the government's) business?
The question should be "Is there a benefit to society in regulating your sex life?" A good realted question would be "Do people have a constitutional right not to have their sex life regulated".
Different questions altogether.
Posted by: Fred Jones. | Jun 26, 2006 3:23:32 PM
LOL... I saw the number of comments on this thread relative to the others posted today & knew that Fred was on the job.
I agree with Gabe wrt it not really mattering, though-- I don't expect to have any more right to judge who others love than they have to tell me that I should seek out men who are taller/shorter/darker/blonder/stockier/more athletic/whatever. Even after years of fairly critical analysis of qualities to which I'm instinctively drawn, I still can't really explain why they attract me, and as long as they don't preclude respectful & mutually affectionate relationships, no more analysis is needed.
Posted by: latts | Jun 26, 2006 3:24:26 PM
Rebecca, good question. Marriage as we know it only emerged as something for the masses at the end of the middle ages when the serfs were allowed to own property. Before that, the landed gentry could care less what the masses did, so it was only the gentry who undertook formal, state-recognized marriages. Religious or pagan ceremonies for the unwashed masses were not kept track of. Maybe your clan kept track, but that's all that mattered.
Marriage for all became a covenant recognized by the state to assure smooth transition of property after death. There were muddied lines between church and state in those times (kings were supposed to be somewhere between mortal and divine), but now that most nations have separated church and state, it took us a couple hundred years to getting around to having this debate. Do we marry people for the legitimate government interest in not excessively burdening the state with matters of personal property? Or is it a religious bond?
Well, you can probably see where this is going. For those who would prefer to blur the lines between church and state, of course they don't want same-sex couples marrying. Me, I tend to take a more pragmatic approach. Getting government deeply involved in matters of property succession is an expensive proposition, so there continues to be a government interest in formal covenants. Therefore, I'd like to, at the very least, see same-sex couples gain all the rights and benefits (and miseries) of some sort of state-recognized covenant, call it a "civil union" if you want.
And as for the religious blessing, leave that to the choice of the individual churches whether they will confer it or not. For our conservative friends, leave it to the market to decide. There are churches willing to bless same-sex couples already -- B'Hai congregations, community churches (depending on the community: Greenwich Village, yes: Chattanooga, probably not). Would a same-sex couple really want to extract a blessing forcibly from a church that wasn't supportive anyway? A safely separated church and state would find no conflicts in the arrangement I propose.
Posted by: Rick | Jun 26, 2006 3:27:26 PM
A bit more relevant research with regards to male homosexuality.
One of the physiological differences proposed for male homosexuality has been anatomic differences in the anterior hypothalamic nuclei.
This has recently been further supported by research showing that two potential human pheromones, 4,16-androstadien-3-one (AND), and estra-1,3,5(10),16-tetraen-3-ol (EST), activate regions in the nuclei of the anterior hypothalamus, and that the activation differs with regard to sex and compound. From the paper, "In contrast to heterosexual men, and in congruence with heterosexual women, homosexual men displayed hypothalamic activation in response to AND." In other words, homosexual men responded to the pheromone produced by other men.
With regard to how a genetic component for homosexuality can be maintained when homosexual men reproduce less than heterosexual men, there are studies that indicate "female maternal relatives of homosexuals have higher fecundity than female maternal relatives of heterosexuals and that this difference is not found in female paternal relatives." and "We found increased fecundity in the relatives of gay men and this is one explanation of how a genetic influence might persist in spite of reduced reproductive fitness in the gay phenotype."
Posted by: gswift | Jun 26, 2006 3:30:08 PM
"Do people have a constitutional right not to have their sex life regulated".
Posted by: Fred Jones. | Jun 26, 2006 12:23:32 PM
Ha. Or you could try it this way; "Does Fred and his ilk have the right to impose regulations on other people's sex lives?"
Such preoccupations these wingnuts have. The sex part of it isn't even the real issue. Gay people can have gay sex whether they get married or not. What they want are the same rights in marriage that straight married couples want (as already noted in DuWayne's post above).
Posted by: sprocket | Jun 26, 2006 3:52:35 PM
Ok, half are arguing the legitimacy of the 'lifestyle' and the other half are arguing the marriage issue.
Which is the real issue here?
Posted by: Fred Jones. | Jun 26, 2006 4:00:42 PM
Rick, The idea is fine as long as straight as well as gay people have something called a civil union. I don't like the idea of something that would look like second class marriage. To me that would be state sponsored stigma. It seems, however, like this is basically the state of play now except that gay people have no civil marriage rights.
If you are Catholic, get married in a Catholic ceremony , get divorced and then remarried, no Catholic Priest will perform the ceremony unless you can somehow get the marriage annulled. You can get a civil marriage license but in the eyes of the church you will still be living in adultery. Similarly, I assume many churches would not recognize gay marriages. Fine, thats their right.
So, I never quite understand the obsession some people seem to have in making sure it will be hard for gay people to gain the rights to easily pass on their property or visit their partner in the hospital. Unfortunately the only answer that makes much sense is either ignorance or a desire to stigmatize gay people and make their lives more difficult
Posted by: Gabe | Jun 26, 2006 4:07:48 PM
Huh Fred? Why can't both of these be the issue. I don't understand what the logical inconsistency you see is?
Posted by: Gabe | Jun 26, 2006 4:09:45 PM
Why can't both of these be the issue.
One is the immutability factor and the other is changing the cornerstone of our society for the sake of the few.
Posted by: Fred Jones. | Jun 26, 2006 4:46:40 PM
another talking point is that marriage is the cornerstone of our society. The modern way of thinking of family really is just that- something to have arisen only in the last couple of centuries. It's definition has been evolving. First with what rights women have in such unions, then to include new groups- ie, blacks marrying whites, etc. So this whole immutability versus mutability argument is factual incorrect. And, more to the point, has zero to do with the science. But, that's how these conversations on science by the right and left degrade in irrelevancies. What Fred, for example, is really saying is that he is afraid that sexual orientatio is a biological construct- then Fred really is being racist, or the Bible (as Fred understands it) must be wrong. Fred, the thing is- 150 years ago people believed that blacks were cursed under scriptures into slavery. It was part of what the Southern Apologists used to defend "their way of life" against the north. The arguments about sexuality aren't much different whe one even bothers to look at how strong the scriptures are about this issue versus what has developed as traditions.
Posted by: bruh | Jun 26, 2006 6:06:02 PM
"The cornerstone of our society for the sake of a few" sounds suspiciously like "the majority will be tarnished" in Judge Leon Bazile's 1959 decision imposed on interracial couple Richard and Mildred Loving.
Posted by: sprocket | Jun 26, 2006 6:11:14 PM
Sorry Ive been doing other things..
The decision of Loving V virginia was decided as you say but circumstances around it were different. Beyond that applying it to the gay marriage debate brings with it a whole list of arguments which would have to be tested in court.
One of many reasons that the Loving V Virg. case was decided as it was was due to the fact that race is and has been considered a 'protected class'. Since miscegenation laws were viewed as a direct result of slavery, those laws needed special consideration.
There are other cases, Ill cite 1 JOHN GEDDES LAWRENCE and TYRON GARNER v. THE STATE OF TEXAS Where the Sup Court explicity decided the sexual orientation was not a protected class. This is only federal though, as that protected class status does vary between states.
Your argument is that in 1 race based case, arguments against regulation prevailed. Therefore that should apply to sexual orientation. That is quite a legal stretch.
Now to those arguing that homosexuals do not have the same rights as you and I; You are just plain wrong. What they dont have are any special rights or a protected status based solely upon their orientation.
If they are denied a job because they are black or a women they have a case. If they are searched without cause or silenced by the government they have a case. In these things we are equal.
Federally if they have been denied any given thing due solely to their orientation someone like the supreme court would have to create the legal decision for them to win. As of yet that has not happened.
Saying that they have no rights, and that they are discriminated against are 2 completely different things.
This is exactly the type of argument that I was trying to say that should _not_ be used to advance this cause. Since as soon as we are done with homosexuals, then we'll have to litigate every minority position.
Instead we could just work within the philosophy that we live in a free country. ..and that to deny someone these things is unjust because they are citizens not because they are white landowning citizens.
Posted by: david b | Jun 26, 2006 6:23:35 PM
Also the whole 'marriage is the cornerstone of our society' quote is just an overused political soundbyte. It has no substance to it.
It would be just as easy to argue that our society would not exist without money, land, food, or taxes. It is a part of our society, and one with many participants. It is an institution which has been changed over time with no great negative consequence.
To say without any justification that adding a class of individuals to this institution would crumble our society really should have more of a burder of proof then has been used.
Posted by: david b | Jun 26, 2006 6:29:55 PM
David:
I apologize for writing fast, but here goes. You walk exactly where I want you to do. Actually, there is a perfectly logical structure which exists within Constitutional juris that probably can address the questions you raise. First, let me just point out the "all other minorities" argument is a slippery slope. Who are these other minorities in our society? Second, the requirements of Constitution juris, in order to receive protection under the 14th A, has a list of criteria that the minority would have to prove first. It is why we require the govt to demonstrate that it has strongly compelling (forget the wording- its been a lot of years) reason for discrimination on the basis of gender. Your distinction about no rights and discrimination is pretty much meaningless - but its no biggie in terms of the overall big picture. it's meaningless by the way because it's like one of those special rights argument- it's just rhectoric- not a real legal consideration since the process for the court is pretty much the same regardless of how you word it- the courts can only give the rights that all other Americans already enjoy. They never give more rights. Even affirmative action is meant to address the de facto differences in rights that Americans have- ie, with mortgage leaning for example (but this is off topic.)
The structure for addressing sexual orientation issues is under the scrutiny provided under gender. This is, at base, a gender issue- not really a new class at all. All of the laws that discriminate agaisnt gays or deny them rights are based on an extension of gender discriminatio for the most part. By arguing the law from this angle, rather than equating gay to being Jewish, one can shift the burden to the state to explain why it has a strong interest in denying marriage licenses to two men versus one man, one woman. It's a burden that they would probably be hard pressed to meet.
Posted by: akai | Jun 26, 2006 6:48:47 PM
Interesting that this evidence supports the view that homosexuality is (at least in part) CONGENITAL, but not GENETIC.
It's congenital because it is shaped prior to birth, in utero, probably by the maternal hormonal bath.
But it is not GENETIC, because the genotype of the affected males is no different in these respects from the genotype of their elder brothers.
Think about it: it couldn't be. The genotype is fixed at the moment of conception, when a bunch of genes from the egg meet a bunch of genes from the sperm.
Neither sperm nor egg know how many previous conceptions have occurred with this pair of parents, much less how many of those have been brought to term. The event is completely independent of any previous events.
So the GENES of these younger siblings are just another completely random draw from the same basket as their older siblings' genes.
But the condition is CONGENITAL because it happens prior to birth.
So is it nature or nurture? Well, this is a good case in which that dichotomy doesn't do the trick. It can't be "nature" if by nature you mean "genetic endowment". It might be "nurture" if you include the amniotic environment in the category of "nurture". But we don't, usually--usually we mean stuff that happens after birth (that's why twin studies are interesting--the separation at birth or soon after will usually screen off the effects of "nurture".
What we need to do are twin-studies of the following form: find a recent blastocyst that has just fissioned into two separate embryos. Extract them both from wherever they currently are (womb, petri dish, wherever) and plant them in separate uteri: one of a woman who has delivered a large number of previous boys, and one of a woman who has never delivered any boys.
*Now* we can see what's driving the effect! (Just don't try to get it past the human subjects' board).
Oh--and Fred? You're a complete loser, and a pathetic cretin as well.
Posted by: youngest | Jun 26, 2006 8:18:53 PM
youngest
actually young it doesn't prove that at all. it suggest there is more to it than genetics. they know or suspect rather from the twin studies that there is also some genes involved inthis- and also some of the studies with lesbians but they don't know where or how or if their theories are right. this is just another layer rather than I think a refutation of other rearch although I maybe wrong about this
Posted by: akaison | Jun 26, 2006 9:04:48 PM
Oh--and Fred? You're a complete loser, and a pathetic cretin as well../i>
Heh
I was waiting for the name calling. It's the last resort of those who cannot argue their case and the first resort for those who blindly hate.
Which category do you fit into?
When you can hold a conversation without your emotions running wild like a small child, then let's discuss like grownups do. Of course, if you are a homosexual as your chosen name indicates, it's like trying to discuss with a four year old child why he shouldn't have ice cream and cake for dinner. He cannot see the immediate problems, but his parents can see the longer term issues.
Posted by: Fred Jones | Jun 26, 2006 10:36:20 PM
Here's the real question:
Are the people in a democracy allowed to shape their own society? Can they choose in matters such as this?
Or is this simply too important to be left to the "little people"?
Posted by: Fred Jones | Jun 26, 2006 10:42:56 PM
Are the people in a democracy allowed to shape their own society? Can they choose in matters such as this?
They are, up to the point where the majority rules to restrict the rights as citizens of a minority - a compelling interest must be demonstrated.
There is no principled, internally consistent argument against gay marriage. There is none. Each and all arguments against gay marriage employ either failures of logic (e.g., slippery slope arguments) or false premises (e.g., sexual orientation is chosen). There is no exception.
When the majority of people in a democracy choose to restrict the rights of a minority - and contra David B, we are talking about a right here, the right to form family units organized around the same biological imperatives that motivate straight people - you have mob rule. The kind of democracy Fred Jones is advocating is the kind that can shape its society to feature segration, eugenics, and internment camps. The real question is if that's the kind of democracy we're after.
Preservation of a priveleged status is the single true motivation behind opposition to gay marriage. These other arguments are so much rationalization.
Posted by: cerebrocrat | Jun 26, 2006 11:44:53 PM
Akai.. Well then you have successfully worked to make the homosexuals a member of a protected class, and therefore not in need of any new special protections of their own based solely upon their being homosexuals. That arguement is so far at least partially untested, but its a good argument. If it ends up being successfull, then we wont need all this wrangling anyway.
Fred's argument is based upon a common misconception, that we live in a democracy. We don't live in a pure democracy; wherein majority rule would allow for all the injustices quoted above me. We live in a democratic republic, which works to counter mob rule with (supposedly) responsible institutions like the senate. As such we've worked to counter the baser insticts of the masses with reason and justice.
My arguments as I hoped could be seen through context we're about explicit rights. Per my argument gay marriage, or even straight marriage is not a right. It is not mentioned in the constitution as such.
You can argue that it is implicit within 'the pursuit of happiness' and the 'equal protection' clause, but it is not an explicit right equivelent to free speech or religion. That argument has yet to be decided by those with the power to enforce it, hence all the interpretation and bogus discrimination in regards to it.
Posted by: david b | Jun 27, 2006 12:30:23 AM
Many of the "rights" you would like to assign to this group are not inconsistant with other groups that share the same properties that you use in your decision such as polygaminsts. These decisions are not by any means a foregone conclusion and are up for much debate.....and that is what I would like to do.
Man have I missed out all afternoon, Now I can make the poin Fred opened me up for. If you want to play that ridicupous game, the game of consistent rights. So let me ask you this, why should society afford special rights to religious groups? Because under your logic, Fred, they should receive no protections for the choice they make. Lets cut the tax breaks and in some cases subsidies to churches of every religion. Lets overturn every law that protects us from discrimination due to Religious affiliation, including Christians.Lets get rid of clergy protection and exemption laws that allow the clergy to, for example, work as a therepist without a license. Religion is after all a personal decision, the act of worship a choice.
Now the church I attend would never survive if we had to pay taxes and there are the ignorant out there who might discriminate against my Christian faith, given the oppertunity.
And to be clear, the same anti-discrimination laws that gays want, already protect everyone else. Personaly, I think the example you give, polygamy, as I mentioned above, should be protected as well. Simply stated, sexual preference. Why the hell not? Our absolute objection to the idea is silly. As silly as teh idea of allowing discrimination due to religious preference, a behaviour our society embraces so thouroughly we give it preferential treatment on top of anti-discrimination laws. The queers aren't even asking for tax breaks - just equal protection under the law.
Posted by: DuWayne | Jun 27, 2006 2:17:03 AM
How many times has fred jones switched back and forth, I wonder?
Posted by: merlallen | Jun 27, 2006 7:28:05 AM
How many times has fred jones switched back and forth, I wonder?
It would seem that you are willing to throw your favored group under the bus for the purpost of insult and to win.
If you discuss this issue and don't agree with the homosexual activists, you must be a queer yourself. This has been the left-wing standard attempt to shut down opposition.
So, your 'logic' would dictate that if you don't get on board with my anti-communism rant, then you, yourself, must be a communist. If you don't agree with me on the flag burning issue, then you, yourself, must be a flag burner. I think you get the picture. It's a crock.
People (myself included) will not be intimidated by this device and will vote the way we think we should. It's called democracy....something you SAY you honor, until you don't get what you want.
Posted by: Fred Jones | Jun 27, 2006 8:51:47 AM
So let me ask you this, why should society afford special rights to religious groups? Because under your logic, Fred, they should receive no protections for the choice they make. Lets cut the tax breaks and in some cases subsidies to churches of every religion.
Your argument is compelling in theory. However, explicitly enumerated constitutional rights are what we, as a society, have taken off the discussion table. We have settled these these issues.
If you wish to make special laws for homosexuals a constitutional amendmendment and can muster the public's support for this high legal bar, then I would have to bow to the obvious will of the people and not try to impose my minority views upon anyone. I could, and still would, try to change the law, but would honor it, as I do abortion upon demand, until it is changed.
It's called honoring the democratic system of government and I would expect this of any patriot and that is what makes me better, yes, BETTER than you.
Posted by: Fred Jones | Jun 27, 2006 9:22:51 AM
I think this discussion while interesting, has just about petered out. However, the last point I'd like to make is that Fred seems to still be missing the point. It really isn't very important whether homosexuality is congenital, genetic or behavorial in terms of the argument over gay marriage.
Its certainly interesting to think about, but to argue for gay rights or marriage based specifically on inherent factors is a defensive argument. It concedes that there is something wrong with homosexuality or at least that somehow it is an inferior lifestyle.
I understand why the argument has and is being made. It refutes the old slurs about homosexuality being a mental disorder. But it shouldn't be the principle argument, partly because it tends to stigmatize people who fall into grey areas of sexuality, and partly just because its not really the strongest argument to be made. An argument for gay marriage should be made based on the basic rights of all people to dignity and equal rights to pursue happiness in ways of their own choosing.
Posted by: Gabe | Jun 27, 2006 9:39:28 AM
Hey, don't worry about Fred. After all, he believes The Left(TM) was the side opposed to U.S. involvement in World War II.
I was waiting for the name calling. It's the last resort of those who cannot argue their case and the first resort for those who blindly hate.
Actually, an appeal to authority is the last resort of those who cannot argue their case.
Here's the real question:
Are the people in a democracy allowed to shape their own society? Can they choose in matters such as this?
Or is this simply too important to be left to the "little people"?
Fred, when you demonstrate that you have even heard of the concept called "tyranny of the majority," I will take you more seriously.
Do you feel the same way about interracial marriage? And I'm not talking about how it was brought up earlier in this thread. Forget whether or not it's a fair parallel to same-sex marriage, except for this one respect: In general terms, most people, at least in the states that outlawed it, supporting banning miscegenation. Democratically chosen and everything. The same for segregated schools, poll taxes, and a whole lot more. I take it you supported all that. After all, it's how people in a democracy shaped their own society, right?
Fred, you probably feel that the insults you're getting in this thread are just more evidence — not that any is needed, of course — that The Left (TM) is a bunch of ignorant haters stuck in an echo chamber. I think people are just skipping a few steps. You're just asking general leading questions rather than being upfront about what you believe, after all, so people are jumping to conclusions. But this thread should make them clearer: you say dislike for homosexuals is not grounded in religion. Instead, you argue that the American Psychological Association's decision to stop treating homosexuality as a disease was the result of a takeover by a cabal of liberals, or something like that, relying on the word of someone you very dubiously call "pro-homosexual" to make your case. You assert that our current marriage institution is the bedrock of our society, and ignore requests to explain or defend that belief. And you never explain the logical leap from "it's a disease" to "people with that disease shouldn't marry". Also, maybe I shouldn't treat two instances as a trend, but your exchange with youngest upthread is at least the second time you compared homosexuality to a four-year-old being denied ice cream. Speculation is inevitable.
Oh, wait. The Left (TM) doesn't win elections, so I guess I'm wrong that miscegenation laws were democratically chosen. I probably hallucinated the threads I linked to as well. Never mind.
Posted by: Cyrus | Jun 27, 2006 10:16:50 AM
What you are missing, Cyrus, is that I don't bring my personal feelings into this legal arguement. I may hate the American Nazi Party personally, but still afford them their constitutional rights.
Posted by: Fred Jones. | Jun 27, 2006 11:06:04 AM
What you are missing, Cyrus, is that I don't bring my personal feelings into this legal arguement.
Bully for you. I guess I'm thick, though, because I don't see what that has to do with... anything, really. Have you heard of the concept of a tyranny of the majority? Do you think it's a valid concern? Do you think it's relevant to interracial marriage, and if so, do you have an explanation why not also same-sex marriage? Do you have an explanantion of why marriage (monogamous heterosexual equal partnerships between consenting adults intended if not reserved for romantic relations rather than, for example, financial) is a particular bedrock of our society we can't possibly change? Do you have a reason to draw the connection between "it's a disease" and "people with a certain disease shouldn't be allowed to marry each other"? Can you explain how it's an assault on the family and what the effects of acceptance of homosexuality would be?
It really, really looks to me like you haven't thought your opinions through, or you've posted reasonable answers to all those questions but the posts are magically invisible to me, or you do in fact bring your "personal feelings into this legal arguement".
Posted by: Cyrus | Jun 27, 2006 11:33:39 AM
Tyranny of the majority is a concern. That is why, as a society, we have taken certain items off the table. Slavery would be one of them. This issue, so far, has not qualified.
The left's repeated attempt to snuggle this issue up to the race issue is bogus. It is not a race issue. If it were, it would more settled...and it isn't.
Few in this country, even the population of the world, would disagree that one man and one woman has been the preferred standard for several reasons. Granted that we don't have perfect families with divorce or a large percentage born out of wedlock, but why should the governement encourage even more problems? One must believe that there is no benefit for society to have family norms. If that were the case, we would have lawful polygamy and even other legal combinations. We don't.
All of this is academic and fun to discuss, but the real decision makers will be those who have to live with this issue and your side are the ones that will have to make a compelling case as to why it is in society's benefit to change today's standard to include same-sex marriage, but not these other combinations that also qualify under your critera.
The burden is yours, not mine.
Posted by: Fred Jones. | Jun 27, 2006 11:53:51 AM
Fred: it's like trying to discuss with a four year old child why he shouldn't have ice cream and cake for dinner. He cannot see the immediate problems, but his parents can see the longer term issues.
Okay, Mommy Fred, I'll bite: what's the long-term problem with legalizing same-sex marriage? What's the down side? What's the cost to society?
Posted by: Hamilton Lovecraft | Jun 27, 2006 12:04:54 PM
Actually, Fred, don't answer that. I've got a better question.
Forget Loving vs. Virginia. Do you think Lawrence vs. Texas was correctly decided? That's an activist court striking down legislation created by duly elected representatives of the people in 15 states.
Posted by: Hamilton Lovecraft | Jun 27, 2006 12:25:35 PM
1)Societal approval of deviant sexual behavior
2)Societal encouragement and approval of substandard environment for raising of children.
3)Inconsitantcy of law regarding marriage combinations.
4)English and Spanish common law upon which our legal system is based must be trashed and settled law must be redesigned, a huge and daunting task.
5)Inconsitancy with religious views of overwhelming majority of citizens.
6)Societal promotion of behavior that has been statistically shown to shorten lifespan.
These are just mine and mine alone off the top of my head. If you wish me to do some research on other reasons, I guess I could.
Posted by: Fred Jones. | Jun 27, 2006 12:43:17 PM
Do you think Lawrence vs. Texas was correctly decided?
Good question. "Correctly decided" is a tarbaby. I do understand the legal reasoning the court used. The people can always draft a law that would satisfy the courts if they wish just as the people can redraft and pass the Marriage Protection Amendment if they wish. They probably will be more enthusiastic about it if the activists push the 'full faith and credit' issue and force the states to accept others' definition of marriage.
Posted by: Fred Jones. | Jun 27, 2006 12:51:14 PM
1)Societal approval of deviant sexual behavior
2)Societal encouragement and approval of substandard environment for raising of children.
3)Inconsitantcy of law regarding marriage combinations.
4)English and Spanish common law upon which our legal system is based must be trashed and settled law must be redesigned, a huge and daunting task.
5)Inconsitancy with religious views of overwhelming majority of citizens.
6)Societal promotion of behavior that has been statistically shown to shorten lifespan.
1, Deviant by who's standards?
2, Do you know any gays who have adopted? I do and they make fantastic parents who take better care of their kids than many staight folks.
3, Then letys get the state out of the marriaghe business as I suggested before - then it can be protected for the religious all you want.
4, Why? Why trash any settled law, why should it matter how daunting a task (a notion I think is ridiculous) to stop discriminating against anyone in our society - soemthing I find to be far more disgusting and immoral than anyones sexuality, whatever that might be?
5, Oh, God forbid in a society that caters to the religious, all religious folks should pass laws that protect both religious and nonreligious sexual minorities from the tyranny of the religious preferences of others. And I would love to see the evidence that backs up your claim that the religious preferences of teh majority disagree with homosexuality. But even if it does - who gives a damn? The religious have their own protection from the tyranny of the majority. Including the tyrrany of those who disagree with their religion on religious grounds.
6, A big part of why it statisticly has been shown to lessen the lifespan has little to due with real percentages of gays and more to do with percentages of gays who are "out." Aside from that, if you look into the numbers of heteros who live a lifestyle similar to the one I used to - you find even shorter lifespans. As more gays conme out and as they have less need for anonymity the less they get into more dangerous sexual practices and the more they tend to form permanent relationships - which could only be compounded by ther ability to marry or (and my preference - getting the state out of marriage) civil unions like everyone else would be subject to.
And Fred, you are not better than me. And with that stupid comment, that ridiculous assumption that one person is somehow better than another I lose all respect for you. Here I had the impression you were somehow above personal insults and attacks - silly me. I will not stoop to your level - soemthing I have yet to do in quite a long time, because I don't believe anyone can claim higher value than another. When you call into question my parenting skills, my work ethic, my faith and my compassion, things that make me as "good" as I am - you have gone far beyond the pale. I would have more respect had you called me a fu** hole than I do with your claim of higher value than myself.
Posted by: DuWayne | Jun 27, 2006 2:06:33 PM
1)Societal approval of deviant sexual behavior
Agree to disagree. We already have marriage laws that institutionalize deviant sexual behavior -- pedophilia -- in several states.
2)Societal encouragement and approval of substandard environment for raising of children.
Studies have shown that children raised by lesbians turn out just fine. Apart from the fact that they tend to be tolerant and stuff.
3)Inconsitantcy of law regarding marriage combinations.
Not sure what you mean by that. Inconsistent from jurisdiction to jurisdiction? Marriage law already is, hence MA's 1913 Law.
4)English and Spanish common law upon which our legal system is based must be trashed and settled law must be redesigned, a huge and daunting task.
What had to be "trashed" and "redesigned" in the wake of MA's Goodridge v. Department of Public Health decision? Was this a "huge and daunting" task?
5)Inconsitancy with religious views of overwhelming majority of citizens.
Not a valid objection to, e.g. the state allowing Jews to marry Catholics. Prohibiting SSM could as easily be construed as a government restriction on the religious expression of more tolerant sects.
6)Societal promotion of behavior that has been statistically shown to shorten lifespan.
Correlation is not causation. Recognizing and protecting stable same-sex relationships would be a huge step in eliminating the factors which shorten the lifespan of homosexuals.
Posted by: Hamilton Lovecraft | Jun 27, 2006 2:35:54 PM
"Do you think Lawrence vs. Texas was correctly decided?"
Good question. "Correctly decided" is a tarbaby. I do understand the legal reasoning the court used. The people can always draft a law that would satisfy the courts if they wish
Good god, Fred.
A) Are you happy with the decision on a personal level?
B) Are you happy with the decision on a constitutional-ideal level?
C) Do you think that the TX legislature should be able to ban sodomy if it's the will of the majority of the population of TX?
D) Do you think that the TX legislature should be able to ban sodomy if it's the will of a minority of the population of TX?
Posted by: Hamilton Lovecraft | Jun 27, 2006 2:44:37 PM
A) no
B) yes
C) yes
D) no
If the state sees a societal benefit, I don't see why sodomy is off the table. We regulate prostitution, drugs and other 'personal' issues....why is sodomy so holy? (holy...get it??)
Posted by: Fred Jones. | Jun 27, 2006 3:15:45 PM
I would have more respect had you called me a fu** hole than I do with your claim of higher value than myself.
I feel that way because you don't honor the democratic system. It's your way or the highway. It's a selfish attitude and comes at the expense of others.
Posted by: Fred Jones. | Jun 27, 2006 3:19:24 PM
Q: Are you happy with the decision on a personal level? A: No
So you personally would prefer anti-sodomy laws to remain in force in 15 US states?
In regards to your other answers, I'm a little confused, and this may be my fault due to the way I phrased the questions.
According to your answers, it's not cool for the Texas legislature to ban sodomy in the face of Texan majority support for sodomy, but it's okay for the federal courts to legalize it in the face of Texan legislative opposition to it?
So either state population or federal judiciary should trump state legislature.
How about fed judiciary vs state population? Since you accept the decision on a constitutional-ideal level, and it seems likely that in at least one of the 15 sodomy-banning states, the will of the people aligns with the law of the land, it seems like you're saying that the federal judiciary should be able to overrule state populations' majority opinions.
Am I misrepresenting your statements or taking you somewhere you aren't willing to go?
Posted by: Hamilton Lovecraft | Jun 27, 2006 4:47:11 PM
You misrepresent everything. The courts did not say sodomy laws were unconstitutional, per se. They said the sodomy laws were not uniformly applied.
Posted by: Fred Jones. | Jun 27, 2006 4:57:48 PM
Fred,
That's not what the Lawrence decision said. It was decided on privacy grounds. I asked another lawyer to make certain, but your views seems to be an equal protection argument, which, by the way, would have been more honest, and I would have preferred. However, they decided on privacy grounds. So, I think you are confused on this issue, and many others.
Akai
Posted by: akaison | Jun 27, 2006 5:18:20 PM
No importa. All Hamilton is doing is trying to "Get a conservative". The real issue is when do the people have the right to decide these devisive issues through a democratic process? Only when it's to Hamilton's advantage?
Posted by: Fred Jones. | Jun 27, 2006 5:20:40 PM
PS
Fred,
The reason you have seen even conservative justices coming down on the side of gays on these issues is that, once you get passed the homophobia that people like Scalia exude, there really aren't any strong legal arguments for the treatment under the law that gay people receive in this country. These conservatives aren't liberals- they simply understand the weight of history when it comes to rights in the US. We don't give special rights to people- we simply include more groups in the rights that other Americans already enjoy. Historically speaking you are on the wrong side of history, and the christo-conservatives knwo time is running out. Even ignoring all the con law reasons why this treatment under the law is unconstitutional- the fact is the majority is slowly moving in the direction of supporting marriage. 15 years ago- barely 30 percent of the population- at best were in support of marriage and/or civil unions. Now that number has went up to nearing the 50 /50 mark. My question to you is what will happen to your position once this occurs? I mean then its the majority wanting marriage or civil unions. I suspect then you will change your arguments to fit your homophobia yet again.
Posted by: akaison | Jun 27, 2006 5:27:01 PM
Finally, fred, I find your whole line of argument dishonest. So we are suppose to respect the majority when it comes to this issue, but not on say the issue of abortion. My guess is that your argument would change there too. See my argument is not based on your definition of majoritarian democracy. It's based on the democracy we have. We live in a liberal democracy - little l - no connection to political idealogy. the bill of rights, sep of powers, federalism- etc are all designed to deal with competing interests. you would have us pretend, for the sake of your homophobia, that there is only one interest. that's not our system. if you don't like our form of democracy say so- butdont act like you are representing what our democracy is- and certainly dont base it on your homophobia. the most dangerous part of that is not what will happen to gay people. it's what would happen to our country should your version of 'values' become the norm. those values aren't about any guiding principles of the polity- it's about the whims of the moment. the guiding long term principles here are questions of fairness, equality, etc- not merely what your hates says it is.
Posted by: akaison | Jun 27, 2006 5:32:15 PM
The real issue is when do the people have the right to decide these devisive issues through a democratic process? Only when it's to Hamilton's advantage?
Dude, I'm already married, so legalizing same sex marriage probably doesn't advantage me.
But the principle I'm striving for is that the will of the majority should count for less when they're trying to restrict freedoms and oppress people. I don't know how to codify that, unfortunately.
Posted by: Hamilton Lovecraft | Jun 27, 2006 6:26:38 PM
I would like to remind all that I am not trying to change anything. It is you who argue that now, all of a sudden, in the last few years, you find oppression for homosexuals where none was detected previously.
If you wish to change things, you will have to have 1) Good reasons how this will serve society as a whole and 2) get the voters on board.
If you jam this up the voters' asses without these two criteria being met, you will have a never ending struggle as you have now with the abortion upon demand.
Is that what you really want? Is it your way, any way you can get it?
Posted by: Fred Jones. | Jun 27, 2006 7:14:28 PM
Fred,
Give me a break. You don't care what the voters want. You are simply using it as a pretext for your homophobia. That's the real truth. I won't pussyfoot around that by continuing to pretend otherwise. Peace out.
Akaison
Posted by: akaison | Jun 27, 2006 8:37:01 PM
If you jam this up the voters' asses
Honey, we're shoving it down voters' throats, not up their asses. Didn't you get the memo?
Posted by: Hamilton Lovecraft | Jun 27, 2006 9:29:15 PM
The Marriage amendment was premature to protect against the courts forcing states to accept other states' definition of marriage.
Just wait until this becomes a crisis. Almost 80% of the citizens in this nation identify themselves as a Christian and the overwhelming majority will not tolerate an attack on marriage. 39 states' voters have made their wishes clear.
Oh, and to Hamilton. Just like every other state, I too, do not recognize your 'marriage'. Like you, it's a sham.
Posted by: Fred Jones | Jun 28, 2006 9:09:46 AM
Oh, and to Hamilton. Just like every other state, I too, do not recognize your 'marriage'. Like you, it's a sham.
I'm married to a woman, moron. Every state in the union recognizes my marriage.
Posted by: Hamilton Lovecraft | Jun 28, 2006 11:35:12 AM
Just wait until this becomes a crisis. Almost 80% of the citizens in this nation identify themselves as a Christian and the overwhelming majority will not tolerate an attack on marriage. 39 states' voters have made their wishes clear.
...
Posted by: Fred Jones
That's right. Whatever happens, it's the gay's fault. With those short skirts, they were just begging for it.
"Oh, and to Hamilton. Just like every other state, I too, do not recognize your 'marriage'. Like you, it's a sham."
I'm married to a woman, moron. Every state in the union recognizes my marriage.
Posted by: Hamilton Lovecraft
Not if you're in it. I think the technical term is "in cherem."
Posted by: Cyrus | Jun 28, 2006 12:25:07 PM
Cyrus, I read the wikipedia article on cherem and am not sure what you're talking about.
Posted by: Hamilton Lovecraft | Jun 28, 2006 1:11:02 PM
Cyrus, I read the wikipedia article on cherem and am not sure what you're talking about.
Posted by: Hamilton Lovecraft
Meh, the joke fell flat, I guess. I was just looking for a more technical and Biblical-sounding way of saying "pariah" or "unclean". The law doesn't apply to you because you aren't part of the community, something like that.
Posted by: Cyrus | Jun 28, 2006 1:17:58 PM
I'm married to a woman...
All of the posts you have provided on this board lead us to believe otherwise.
Posted by: Fred Jones. | Jun 28, 2006 1:35:40 PM
"I'm married to a woman..."
All of the posts you have provided on this board lead us to believe otherwise.
Cite one.
I'm bisexual. I've stated that outright. You have called me a cocksucker. I haven't denied it. There's no contradiction here.
Posted by: Hamilton Lovecraft | Jun 28, 2006 1:40:07 PM
Don't give blood.
Posted by: Fred Jones. | Jun 28, 2006 3:07:56 PM
Is that all you have to contribute?
Posted by: Hamilton Lovecraft | Jun 28, 2006 4:24:19 PM
my view of fred is that he's a little kid trying to play the games of men. but guys like him are why we are where are in this country. they confuse faux masculinity with being all grown up. real grown men fred don't wilt when compared to others. you seem to fall apart.
Posted by: akaison | Jun 28, 2006 8:23:30 PM
I'm bisexual. I've stated that outright. You have called me a cocksucker. I haven't denied it. There's no contradiction here.
So, if what you say is true....what kind of marriage is *that*??
Bottom line, is you wish to play the semantics game. If I fix my hot water heater, I'm not a plumber. If I do my own taxes, I'm not an accountant. But suck one dick and you are, indeed, a sexual deviant. Same with child molesters. There are no 'sometimes' pedophiles. Screw one child.....and you qualify.
All you are doing is telling me what kind of deviant you are.....a subcategory. So what?
Posted by: Fred Jones | Jun 29, 2006 8:33:39 AM
Holy shit Fred! You really are a sick and twisted freak. You just accused the man of being a child molester - or at least no different from one. You have some serious problems.
Posted by: DuWayne | Jun 29, 2006 12:20:05 PM
In all honestly, pedophiles also claim that they, too, are 'born that way' and it's just the way they are. And most authorities and psychologists agree. However, you are willing to hold them responsible for their behavior, but not homosexuals.
I'm not trying to get into "one is harmful and the other one isn't" argument. What I mean is you believe one cannot help themselves and should not be held responsible and the other group should.
Bottom line is if you think homosexuality is not their fault, then you should also believe that pedophilia is also not their fault.
Posted by: Fred Jones. | Jun 29, 2006 12:59:07 PM
"I'm bisexual. I've stated that outright. You have called me a cocksucker. I haven't denied it. There's no contradiction here."
So, if what you say is true....what kind of marriage is *that*??
My kind of marriage, and an extremely happy one. My wife and I went out dancing last night and pointed out hot boys and girls to each other.
I'm not trying to get into "one is harmful and the other one isn't" argument.
AHAHAHAHahahahahhahaahahahhaah.
Posted by: Hamilton Lovecraft | Jun 29, 2006 1:03:29 PM
Fred: In all honestly, pedophiles also claim that they, too, are 'born that way' and it's just the way they are. And most authorities and psychologists agree.
Do you have a citation for your claim that most authorities agree on that, by the way? Some quick googling for 'causes of pedophilia' suggests that there's no consensus, with a lean towards social factors.
But that's a sideshow to the issue of harm.
Posted by: Hamilton Lovecraft | Jun 29, 2006 2:16:57 PM
You are RIGHT!!!
The APA want's to do the same thing they did with homosexuality and dismiss it as harmless behavior. Both once universally officially recognized as deviant behavior and now both not!
Seems you are in good company.
Posted by: Fred Jones. | Jun 29, 2006 3:51:38 PM
One simple little question Fred. What harm does homosexuality cause you? How does homoerotic behaviour cause you damage? Do you fear that it is contagious? What? My honest curiosity just continues to outweigh my distaste for your bigotry and supiriority complex.
Posted by: DuWayne | Jun 29, 2006 4:05:03 PM
The APA wants to do the same thing they did with homosexuality and dismiss it as harmless behavior. Both once universally officially recognized as deviant behavior and now both not!
Again, can you cite anything that indicates that the APA wants to dismiss child molestation as harmless? Or are you just making more shit up?
Unlike you, Fred, I understand the difference between deviant behavior and criminal or harmful behavior.
I have no problem with non-harmful, non-criminal deviant behavior, and in fact most people engage in one sort of deviant behavior or another.
Posted by: Hamilton Lovecraft | Jun 29, 2006 4:10:36 PM
What harm does homosexuality cause you? How does homoerotic behaviour cause you damage? Do you fear that it is contagious? What?
A fair question, DuWayne, but one that I have answered time and time again. As a "victimless crime" is may not affect me directly. How does drug use on the other side of town affect you personally? Prostitution? Illegal gambling? Bootlegging? The answer is...it doesn't. The damage is in the unwanted changes it causes to society as a whole.
Again, I must separate my personal views from my respect for the rights of everyone. Hamilton and other sexual deviants like him have the right to be as queer as he pleases. I would defend that. That is really not at issue here.
The attempt by activists to change the definition of marriage without any democratic process is the issue for me and in that issue, Hamilton really doesn't have a dog in that fight if what he says is true.
Posted by: Fred Jones | Jun 30, 2006 9:22:22 AM
Hamilton and other sexual deviants like him have the right to be as queer as he pleases. I would defend that. That is really not at issue here. The attempt by activists to change the definition of marriage without any democratic process is the issue for me and in that issue, Hamilton really doesn't have a dog in that fight if what he says is true.
If I don't have a dog in that fight, you sure as hell don't.
The damage is in the unwanted changes it causes to society as a whole.
Damage is being done to my society now. Treating millions of Americans as second-class citizens harms them directly. They are my friends, they are your neighbors. They lay awake at night worrying about things like these that they can't have.
These are real social harms.
I get that you think homosexuality must be discouraged because it's inherently wrong, and that you think that allowing same-sex marriage won't properly discourage it.
In my opinion, maltreatment, ostracism, denigration, and beating to death of homosexuals must be discouraged because it's inherently wrong, and I think that allowing same-sex marriage will help shift attitudes in that direction.
Posted by: Hamilton Lovecraft | Jun 30, 2006 7:26:55 PM
If same-sex marriage is allowed, that would require converting the majority of the population to love it too. Quite a task that will be since many people are deeply disgusted by it and see the damage it causes in the longterm in conjunction with more sexual recklessness, divorce, abuse, and plain selfishness(see European societies like the Netherlands).
A great deal of people will resist special interests like this because some recognize that they don't really care about the good of the nation in a the longrun, just their own little clique.
Posted by: TaziaH | Nov 3, 2006 3:29:57 PM
I tend to think that instead of Gay "Marriage" in the text of having it exactly the same, identical to Straight Marriage, it should be sanctioned as its own reserved, specific element. I'm not being very clear here because its hard for me to voice ehat I mean precisely. I mean instead of staging everything just as it is with a Heterosexual Marriage which some Homosexuals seem to be obsessed with and I don't quite get why, it could be its own type of Homosexual Conjoinment, "Marriage," just as a Same-Sex Civil Union just more expressed and socially visible. As for what was said earlier about Gays having an intrinsic, innte and immutable instinct, I'm afraid it is true. I am one myself. For me its signs were there from when I was atleast 4, as throughout pre-k and elementary school I had deep emotional drawings to boys my age, though it didn't grow into a dominant Sexual Orientation until adholescence. My Maternal family line is all known medically and biologically for being extremely "Hyper-Fecund" in their Reproductive abilites, which we always knew but never drew a connection until the recent evidence from Padua, Italy connecting Same-Sex Attraction to intense fertility genetic factors. I also have the Fraternal-Birth-Order-Affect, as I am 18 and have a 31 year old brother. There aren't any oyher male Homosexual members in my family in America atleast, all the rest are in Italy, but there are 4 biological female Gays, cousins.
Posted by: Ashton Lee | Jun 13, 2007 10:00:04 PM
