A Defense of Marriage/Gay Rights Amendment

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by than205


Let's try this. How does one explain hermaphrodites?
They being (perhaps) both genders.
Their "preference" (for lack of better term) may not be apparent till later in life. Or better yet, it may be apparent immediately to the child. What if the parent/doctors make the wrong decision if they chose a gender for the child?
Hermaphrodites still happen. Nothing in natural selection has stopped this from happening.
Perhaps something in theirs genes made the determination that they should have both genders?

How many hermaphrodites are out there? Not too many eh? That is why it is a genetic defect that nature corrects by not allowing reproduction and the continuation of the abnormality.

Again I am not saying there is anything wrong with them, but nature usually has a pretty good design for natural selection.

[than205]

Despite thousands of years they still haven't gone away.
As you say they aren't as prevelant. Especially versus homosexuality.
I still stand by the fact that people are what they are. I just don't buy into the whole life choice arguement. So, following that thought I can't see why I should tell gays and lesbians that they can't care or provide care for thier own. (via insurances and whatnot)

[theraidenproject]

I don't think married people should get any special benefits. I don't believe I need to "legitmize" a relationship with a woman by having it blessed by a church or endorsed by the state. (Although I'm sure my future wife won't look at it that way ) Ending the benefits of marriage are unrealistic, so it would be easier to raise other relationships to the same level. That's just the way I see it.

[Hamster Huey]

Folks, chemistry is no different from genetics here. Your genes code for proteins, which in turn regulate your body's biochemistry. Any expressed variation you have in your genes is going to show up as a chemical variation, as well. You can't separate the two, so don't even try to.

And we can stop arguing about natural selection proving that sexuality doesn't have any genetic determination. There have already been extensive studies of identical twins raised in different households that demonstrate that homosexuality clusters with genes. If your identical twin is homosexual, chances are a lot higher that you are, too.

And in addition, we're really looking at natural selection much too simplistically. Just because homosexuality is still around after all this time doesn't mean it can't be genetic. There are all kinds of genetic diseases and conditions that prevent you from reproducing that are still around in force. In addition, homosexuality is not some black-or-white thing that absolutely prevents procreation in its presence and allows it in its absence. If we consider human sexual orientation as a continuum from heterosexuality to homosexuality, with individuals lying at certain points along that continuum, then it's easy to see how homosexual traits can persist in a gene pool even if you assume (falsely) that people at the far homosexual end of the spectrum never reproduce. Joe Partlyhomosexual could produce offspring with Jenny Alsopartlyhomosexual and pass on those "gay genes" with nary a difficulty. And depending on how the genetic roulette went, you could end up with Baby Straightasanarrow or Baby Holyflamingbatman.

And I can virtually guarantee you that there is no single "gay gene".

[Hamster Huey]

And Shartley - bottlenose dolphins, bison, gazelle, antelope, and sage grouse are just a few of the species I'm aware of that are known to form homosexual pair bonds for life.

I don't know if your challenge had been answered yet, and sorry for the late reply, but I can't skim the boards as much as I'd like.

[Kevmaster]

Originally posted by Rooster
So should any man and any woman living together recieve the benifits of being married? I could care less if Adam and Steve want a little peice of paper that says they are eternally bound to each other. Whatever, more power to them. However, they should in no way recieve the benifits of being married. Why? Because it opens the door to everything else. It has nothing to do with religion, it has to do with controling who recieves government benifits. It makes perfect sense, only I could do without the civil union nonsense.

Rooster, I say yes. I have multiple friends who live together (in the same apartment) and who are different sexes. They arn't married. Financially, sure, it might make sense. However, they arnt. Why? Because they arn't in love.

I don't think we'd see a rampant binge of getting marriage liscences just because you can live together cheaper.

They should have the legal right to be each other's legal guardian in a time of crisis. They should have the right to file together, on taxes, just as any other married couple. They should have to right to name each other as beneficiaries on insurance.

[impostal22]

Originally posted by 1stdeadeye


Actually you are wrong. Murder is the premeditated act of killing. Homocide is the term for any killing another. Murder is one degree of it. So in Manslaughter, while a lesser crime, always saounds worse to me then Murder!

uhh murder doesn't have to be premeditated...

but i think that argument was cleared up by the fact that many mammals such as lions do indeed hunt for uhh "pleasure." but then again, most murders aren't to derive pleasure either...

hamster- excellent points, everyone be sure to read his two posts thoroughly. he was going to say what i was going to say, but i wouldn't have done it nearly as well.

that's all for tonight...been a LONG day of posting.

[Quickling]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now further imagine that his parents hated his being gay and his lover.. now when he goes into his parents custody they don't let the lover see him. Love and visitation of loved is proven to help the healing process... but the denying of their visitation would add stress that would not have been healthy. Now my friend was not gay and did not thus go through this.. but it could still happen and I think that is wrong.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


How in the heck is that related to gay marriage?


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Plus my wedding day was one of the happiest days of my life.. on what grounds can you look into some's eyes and tell them they are not worthy of that same love and happieness that I felt that day.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


So without the government giving you a little piece of paper your marriage would be meaningless?

Smart fella? No...he's making points for the sake of making points.

Yeah I am making points to make points.. that is how one forms an arguement.. .they present points.

Point one is related to gay marriage in the sense that when I or my wife becomes incapcitated in the eyes of the law, we are placed in our spouces care. Gay couples are returned to their parents care rather than their lovers.

This then raises issues in that it may become legal for one group (the family) to deny access to a lover, whereas that cannot happen between a husband and wife.

I am just using this as one method of illustrating how a man and wife are each others guardians and their rights as to be guardians of each other are protected by law. They same laws should be extended to others who wish to form a lasting bond.. instantly. Some places have common law marriges, but these take years before they are legitamate. Marriages are legal in an afternoon. If my wife is injured that night... I am her guardian.

If a gay persons lover is injured.. they are only their guardian after years of co-habitance.

Second point... no my marriage would be the same. But we celebrate many holidays that do not change our lives. Birthdays, baby showers, etc... these do not serve to change our lives.. but serve to make them more worth living. If we allow one group to have a day where their love is celebrated.. it is a day about the couple and their love for each other. Our relationship would have continued the same without it... but it was enriched by having it. Why should such enrichment be denied to anyone?

And as far as Sam's point about if the line is moved where does it stop. I find this arguement troubling because it could have been made for any of the changes that were made in the past that we now enjoy. Why give blacks rights, what comes next? Women? Animals?

It is part of the progession of an ideaology of a people. To fear change for what it might bring or for what precedence it might is not a good reason to prevent change in my eyes.

[Rooster]

"They should have the legal right to be each other's legal guardian in a time of crisis. They should have the right to file together, on taxes, just as any other married couple. They should have to right to name each other as beneficiaries on insurance."

The legal gaurdian thing is a tricky issue. What is to stop a man from making his mistres his gaurdian or his insurance benificiary, basically screwing his children over? How could this happen? You just said any man and woman living together should recieve the benifits of being married.

And finally they should never, ever, be able to file together on taxes or file for family benifits.

[shartley]

Originally posted by Hamster Huey
And Shartley - bottlenose dolphins, bison, gazelle, antelope, and sage grouse are just a few of the species I'm aware of that are known to form homosexual pair bonds for life.

I don't know if your challenge had been answered yet, and sorry for the late reply, but I can't skim the boards as much as I'd like.

Okay, now answer how common that is. You only answered the first part of the question. It must be a common occurrence, not JUST an occurrence. We often see deviant or abnormal behavior in EVERY species, but just seeing the behavior is not enough to call it a normal act for that species.

Originally posted by Quickling
And as far as Sam's point about if the line is moved where does it stop. I find this arguement troubling because it could have been made for any of the changes that were made in the past that we now enjoy. Why give blacks rights, what comes next? Women? Animals?

It is part of the progession of an ideaology of a people. To fear change for what it might bring or for what precedence it might is not a good reason to prevent change in my eyes.

Originally posted by Sooky
About the cat and animal killing, mountain lions often engage in surplus killing. I believe lions (african/safari/regular lions?) do as well.

Originally posted by than205


Let's try this. How does one explain hermaphrodites?
They being (perhaps) both genders.
Their "preference" (for lack of better term) may not be apparent till later in life. Or better yet, it may be apparent immediately to the child. What if the parent/doctors make the wrong decision if they chose a gender for the child?
Hermaphrodites still happen. Nothing in natural selection has stopped this from happening.
Perhaps something in theirs genes made the determination that they should have both genders?

[Butterfingers]

Originally posted by Hamster Huey
Folks, chemistry is no different from genetics here. Your genes code for proteins, which in turn regulate your body's biochemistry. Any expressed variation you have in your genes is going to show up as a chemical variation, as well. You can't separate the two, so don't even try to.

And we can stop arguing about natural selection proving that sexuality doesn't have any genetic determination. There have already been extensive studies of identical twins raised in different households that demonstrate that homosexuality clusters with genes. If your identical twin is homosexual, chances are a lot higher that you are, too.

And in addition, we're really looking at natural selection much too simplistically. Just because homosexuality is still around after all this time doesn't mean it can't be genetic. There are all kinds of genetic diseases and conditions that prevent you from reproducing that are still around in force. In addition, homosexuality is not some black-or-white thing that absolutely prevents procreation in its presence and allows it in its absence. If we consider human sexual orientation as a continuum from heterosexuality to homosexuality, with individuals lying at certain points along that continuum, then it's easy to see how homosexual traits can persist in a gene pool even if you assume (falsely) that people at the far homosexual end of the spectrum never reproduce. Joe Partlyhomosexual could produce offspring with Jenny Alsopartlyhomosexual and pass on those "gay genes" with nary a difficulty. And depending on how the genetic roulette went, you could end up with Baby Straightasanarrow or Baby Holyflamingbatman.

And I can virtually guarantee you that there is no single "gay gene".

I agree... There is somthing that triggers the expression of this gay gene... However all Im trying to say is you arent born gay... Some external stimuli must INDUCE this gene to express itself.

Just like people arent born liking automags or timmies... Some external stimuli causes the biochemistry in your brain to like automags and timmies.

[impostal22]

Originally posted by Butterfingers


I agree... There is somthing that triggers the expression of this gay gene... However all Im trying to say is you arent born gay... Some external stimuli must INDUCE this gene to express itself.

Just like people arent born liking automags or timmies... Some external stimuli causes the biochemistry in your brain to like automags and timmies.

we can theorize all day and night about that, but we aren't proving or disproving anything.

[jdev]

Originally posted by Butterfingers


I agree... There is somthing that triggers the expression of this gay gene... However all Im trying to say is you arent born gay... Some external stimuli must INDUCE this gene to express itself.

Just like people arent born liking automags or timmies... Some external stimuli causes the biochemistry in your brain to like automags and timmies.

did you not read my post above? I cited 2 cases (well, not "cases", but instances) above where there was no stimuli involved (or maybe I didn't explain that there was no stimuli. either way, there was no stimuli.) there was no predisposal to a homosexual environment whatsoever. it was something that just came natural to them. there is no "gay gene" as hamster huey already stated.

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by joey d

there is no "gay gene" as hamster huey already stated.

I can prove you wrong in one word:

Jordache!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



No strait man would wear those!!!!!

[wyn1370]

Originally posted by 1stdeadeye
Jordache!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

now that's good comedy