prickly,

A MARRIAGE is the “union�? of one man and one woman as performed with the approval and consent of a church. The government recognizes that the couple have a binding cultural and economic agreement.

The United Church of Canada recognizes gay marriages, and I think the Anglican Church of Canada does as well.  As such, under your analysis gays can get married in Canada if church consent is what’s important.

P.S.  Oh, I also forgot the Canadian Unitarian Council also recognizes gay marriages.  That’s three church organizations that accept them at least.

Unless I’ve missed something, no one here has suggested that the reason for allowing gay marriage is because it doesn’t affect other relationships. 

See MR’s first post.  It is implied. 

One might as well suggest allowing the murder of foreign heads of state for the same reason.

Good.  We can put this in the trash bin where it belongs then.

The rationale for allowing gay marriage is civil rights,....

If being gay was an inherent trait I might be inclined to be moved.  However, unlike the color of the pigmentation in one’s skin, it is a choice.  We know this because of science.  Science has looked and found no “gay” gene.  If being gay is not encoded in the DNA, then it is a maladaptive coping mechanism. 

?  We had a post here a while back about kids raised by lesbian couples doing just fine.

You are likely referencing a technical report from the AAP.  Contained in that report under the Summary section you will find the very first sentence states this:

The small and nonrepresentative samples studied and the relatively young age of most of the children suggest some reserve.

Hardly compelling. 

What we do know is that at as young adults, a higher number of of those young adults are engaging in same sex relationships.  Golombok S, Tasker F, Murray C. Children raised in fatherless families from infancy: family relationships and the socioemotional development of children of lesbian and single heterosexual mothers. J Child Psychol Psychiatry.1997; 38 :783 –791

I pause to note that I’m advocating 2 parent male-female households.  However, there appears to be, at least from the surveys of the studies that I have done over the years a concerted effort to compare children raised in a homosexual household to that of a single heterosexual mother.  The reason is obvious. we know that children raised in single parent homes as oppossed to 2 parent homes have a tougher row to hoe, so the bar is lowered.  That is not the proper comparison, nor should such studies be cited as solid evidence. 

Regards,

What we do know is that at as young adults, a higher number of of those young adults are engaging in same sex relationships.

You make this sound like it’s a bad thing.

If being gay was an inherent trait I might be inclined to be moved.  However, unlike the color of the pigmentation in one’s skin, it is a choice.  We know this because of science.  Science has looked and found no “gay�? gene.  If being gay is not encoded in the DNA, then it is a maladaptive coping mechanism.

So what you are saying then is that YOU have an equal attraction to BOTH Men & Women sexually and that you CHOSE women over men?
I assume your reason for this choice was you didn’t want to burn in hell or what exactly was your parameter you used to make this choice?

You being a Christian I understand that Science is certainly not your best subject so try not to quote any scientific evidence on an Atheist board, odds are very good it will bite you in the ass.
Do you believe that animals are also equally attracted to both sexes and simply “make a choice” at some point?
There are at least 450 different species of animals that show same sex attraction.

“recent studies of animal behavior reveal that same-sex attraction is hardly uncommon. In fact, as Helen Fisher (1992, 167) claims, “homosexuality is so common in [nonhuman] species-and it occurs in such a variety of circumstances-that human homosexuality is striking not in its prevalence but in its rarity.”
In a monumental work on animal homosexuality, Bruce Bagemihl (1999, 12) states that “homosexual behavior occurs in more than 450 different kinds of animals worldwide, and is found in every major geographic region and every major animal group.” Moreover, based on known in-depth studies of animal sexuality, Bagemihl (1999, 31) estimates that 15 to 30 percent of all animal species likely would reveal homosexual behavior. Bagemihl thus lays to rest the view that animals are always strictly heterosexual, and in fact claims that “in many cases homosexual pairings, particularly companionships, actually exceed heterosexual ones in their stability and duration” (Bagemihl 1999, 23). Animals and humans are not so different after all, whatever moral conclusions one might draw from this observation. However, animal ethologists have observed that “animals with ‘different’ sexualities and/or genders are completely integrated into the social fabric of the species, eliciting little of the attention, hostility, segregation, or secrecy that we are accustomed to associating with homosexuality in our society” (Bagemihl 1999, 54).

“Thats because there is no such thing as religion in the animal world “

There is plenty of evidence that shows a strong biological connection to sexual attraction.

http://www.welcome-committee.org/booklet-5-keener.html

I guess I must just be a biological enigma then because I dont ever remember being attracted to Males in anyway whatsoever, therefore at least MY sexual attraction was clearly already biologically set.

I said:

Unless I’ve missed something, no one here has suggested that the reason for allowing gay marriage is because it doesn’t affect other relationships.

consi replied:

See MR’s first post.  It is implied.

MR’s first post:

I’m so disgusted by the “morality�? at the bottom of actions like this that I really think marriage is over-rated. Hell, how strong could it be if the behavior of strangers thousands of miles away can weaken it.

I say, find a work-around to ensure a continuity of quality of life for the survivors and then.... In like Flynn and livin in sin.

That may be naive but I refuse to have someone tell me my love for another is jeopardized by the behavior complete strangers.

Uh, no, MR is not implying that gay marriage should be allowed because it doesn’t affect other relationships.  If anything, MR is implying (correct me if I’m wrong, MR) that gay marriage should not be disallowed, because it does not affect other relationships- quite a different point, and exactly what I said above- the refutation of the fundie argument against gay marriage, not a positive reason for gay marriage.

If being gay was an inherent trait I might be inclined to be moved.  However, unlike the color of the pigmentation in one’s skin, it is a choice.  We know this because of science.  Science has looked and found no “gay�? gene.  If being gay is not encoded in the DNA, then it is a maladaptive coping mechanism.

If you think genetics is so simple, that there might be a single gene “for” homosexuality, you’d better do some reading up on it.  Matters are much more complicated than this, and the jury is not yet in on what exactly causes homosexuality.  It seems certain, however, that there is a strong genetic componenent, based on twin studies:

Bailey and Pillard (1991): occurrence of homosexuality among brothers

* 52% of identical (monozygotic) twins of homosexual men were likewise homosexual
* 22% of fraternal (dizygotic) twins were likewise homosexual
* 11% of adoptive brothers of homosexual men were likewise homosexual

J.M. Bailey and R.C. Pillard, “A genetic study of male sexual orientation,�? Archives of General Psychiatry, vol. 48:1089-1096, December 1991.
Bailey and Pillard (1993): occurrence of homosexuality among sisters

* 48% of identical (monozygotic) twins of homosexual women were likewise homosexual (lesbian)
* 16% of fraternal (dizygotic) twins were likewise homosexual
* 6% of adoptive sisters of homosexual women were likewise homosexual

Bailey, J. M. and D. S. Benishay (1993), “Familial Aggregation of Female Sexual Orientation,�? American Journal of Psychiatry 150(2): 272-277.

And your characterization of homosexuality as being “maladaptive” reveals your prejudice, unless you mean it in the sense of differential fitness:  by this measure, the Pope is as maladaptive as it gets (no offspring), and, say, Ismail the Bloodthirsty of Morocco was very adaptive (888 kids).  Anything else is bigotry.

Consi,

If being gay was an inherent trait I might be inclined to be moved.  However, unlike the color of the pigmentation in one’s skin, it is a choice.  We know this because of science.  Science has looked and found no “gay�? gene.  If being gay is not encoded in the DNA, then it is a maladaptive coping mechanism.

You made in error is assuming that inherency (in that it’s not a matter of choice) requires that a trait be the result of genetic factors.  This is in fact not the case.  There are numerous cases where development doesn’t involve genes, or at least only involve genes playing minor roles.  For example consider the development of visual systems in mammals.

Hubel & Wiesel in their studies during the 1960s clearly demonstrated that the lateral geniculate nuclei and visual cortices formed as the result of the activity of the eyes in the neo-natal period.  For example, they found that if you took newborn cats and sewed one of the eyes shut for the first week of life, that eye would become insensate and would not work after the sutures were removed.  Now there would be no problem with the eye, but the neural mechanisms that interpret the information that comes from the sutured eye. 

So in this case an inherent trait, such as the ability to see has very little to do with genes, but instead has everything to do with environmental conditions. 

Such might indeed be the case with homosexuality.  One study that I read noted that many homosexual men have longer index than ring fingers, which is a indicator of elevated estrogen exposure during prenatal development (indeed, if you look at people’s hands you’ll find that women in general have longer index fingers than ring fingers, and men have longer ring fingers than index fingers).

This being the case, there seems to be some correlation between the occurence of homosexuality in men and exposure to unusually high levels of estrogen in the womb.  As such, an argument can be made that while there might not clearly be a “gay gene” (though no one’s ever found a white gene, black gene, or yellow gene either) there is still a reason to think that homosexuality isn’t a choice. 

But this is all getting too technical.  All you need to know that homosexuality isn’t a choice is to grow up with someone who is homosexual.  Then you’ll see how much they had to struggle to come to grips with something that they have no control over, but wished they did.  Especially when you grow up in a small town where people are quite homophobic and you see your friend’s life made a living Hell.  Watching what my friend Ray went through has clearly demonstrated to me that gay people have no choice about being gay.  If Ray could have been straight he would have been.

P.S.  The studies I referred to in my above post are described in the following articles:

16.Hubel D. Wiesel T. (1963). Receptive fields of cells in striate cortex of very young, visually inexperienced kittens. Journal of Neurophysiology.  Vol. 26(6): pp. 994-1002

17.Hubel D. Wiesel T. (1963). Single-cell responses in striate cortex of kittens deprived of vision in one eye. Journal of Neurophysiology.  Vol. 26(6): pp. 1002-1017.

P.P.S.  Ignore the “16” and “17” in my references, I cut and pasted from the reference section of one of my theses and I forgot to delete the numbers....

Most all of what is being quoted here is encompassed in the one site I listed BTW in one form or another.

http://www.welcome-committee.org/booklet-5-keener.html

Like I said, as a christian best to not bring up any form of alleged scientific basis for your religiously based prejudice as you are quite likely to have garnered your misinformation from some ridiculous “Creation Science” website which as we all know is completely full of shit and easily debunked 99.99% of the time. Best just to stick with magic wands & talking snakes and little invisible friends which is where religion is best suited.

Bailey and Pillard (1991): occurrence of homosexuality among brothers

* 52% of identical (monozygotic) twins of homosexual men were likewise homosexual

It would seem to me, and I’m not making any claim to be a scientist, that if there was a genetic connection, that this figure should be in the high 90s.  Do you know what the proffered response to explain this is? (I’m interested in hearing it)

You make this sound like it’s a bad thing.

El, if it is maladaptive behavior then yes it would be.

And your characterization of homosexuality as being “maladaptive�? reveals your prejudice, unless you mean it in the sense of differential fitness:

I mean it in the sense that if my position is borne out then homosexuality would be a maladaptive response akin to say anti-social personality disorder.  As to what the root triggering mechanism is, there are no studies that have been able to identify this that I’m aware of at this time. 

You may characterize me however you feel you need to zilch.  So you know, I have several gay friends.  There is one friend that I think of especially highly.  I find him to be intelligent, articulate, with a razor sharp sense of humor that is unmatched.  I would do nearly anything for him, including attending his wedding (he’s waiting to be able to get married in the Episcopal church in NY).  That doesn’t stop me from telling him and his partner that I think that they have seriously psychological problems that are manifested by finding love in another man’s hairy ass. 

Nunya:

...what exactly was your parameter you used to make this choice?

I liked nice T & A.

SS:

So in this case an inherent trait, such as the ability to see has very little to do with genes, but instead has everything to do with environmental conditions. Such might indeed be the case with homosexuality.

I would be inclined to agree with this.  That’s my maladaptive point.

One study that I read noted that many homosexual men have longer index than ring fingers, which is a indicator of elevated estrogen exposure during prenatal development (indeed, if you look at people’s hands you’ll find that women in general have longer index fingers than ring fingers, and men have longer ring fingers than index fingers).

I haven’t heard about this.  Can you refer me to the study?

Regards,

Nunya:

ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!! 

Are you even aware that the site that you linking is a site set up by Mennonites?

ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Regards,

yes I am, what Earthly difference does that make?

The information itself has zero to do with them, its merely hosted by them.

You always seem to pick some of the strangest things to have a gripe about.

Of course I looked long and hard to find something that list this information with valid references (which are very solid & valid I might add) on a Christian/Religious host site so that you wouldn’t say, “that’s on a Atheist site” or whatever to infer that its bias and what do you do?

Laugh about it being hosted on a religious site.

LOL, that’s rich.

Happy Winter Solstice

It would seem to me, and I’m not making any claim to be a scientist, that if there was a genetic connection, that this figure should be in the high 90s.  Do you know what the proffered response to explain this is? (I’m interested in hearing it)

Well considering the odds just went up what 500% from the less than 10% average?

Id say that’s pretty damn significant.

I have the strangest feeling of Deja Vu.

Nowiser, I hear you. This is the fifth or sixth rerun of the topic and so far there’s nothing new - other than a new euphemism, maladaptive behaviour, for which Consigliere should supply a formal definition.

The basic argument of the opponents of gay marriage hasn’t changed:

Homosexuality is bad
Gay marriage is worse
It hurts our religious sensibilities
Therefore, it mustn’t be allowed

What’s interesting, though, is that the opposition increasingly sounds like they all read the same debating guide…

I supppose one way to address this is the Pop Tartian approach of settling one point at a time before moving on to the next. And even before that, there should be a glossary.

Consigliere: The real question is what is the basis for the state to sanction marriage in the first instance? If there isn’t a basis for the state to sanction marriage then all of the above go.

Let’s backtrack to there. We can ignore the reference to incestuous relationships, because it is fallacious in several ways at once and intended as a cheap appeal to emotion. What we cannot ignore is another real question - what is the definition of marriage used by Consigliere et al?

Bailey and Pillard (1991): occurrence of homosexuality among brothers
* 52% of identical (monozygotic) twins of homosexual men were likewise homosexual
consi:  It would seem to me, and I’m not making any claim to be a scientist, that if there was a genetic connection, that this figure should be in the high 90s.  Do you know what the proffered response to explain this is? (I’m interested in hearing it)

The proffered explanation, consi, is just as I said: that there is a strong genetic component to homosexuality.  There are other factors as well: first, as Schweindi noted, biological but non-genetic factors:

Higher numbers of older brothers translate into a higher probability of male homosexuality. The proposed theory is that when male fetal cells enter a mother’s circulation, her immune system recognizes them as foreign; this triggers antibodies, which enter the fetus’ brain and shift development away from a male-typical pathway (e.g. sexual attraction to females). The strength of this immunization increases with each male fetus, explaining why the chances of male homosexuality increase with each older brother.

...and, of course, environmental factors.  As nunya pointed out, a genetic connection need not have a 90% correlation to be demonstrated- you must be thinking of eye color, or some other such rather simply inherited trait.

consi:  That doesn’t stop me from telling him and his partner that I think that they have seriously psychological problems that are manifested by finding love in another man’s hairy ass.

If they are happy, where’s the problem?  Take out “psychological” and put in “biblical”, and we’ve got a more accurate assessment of the “problem”.

Oh, and elwed- you wanted a formal definition of “maladaptive” from consi.  Silly you- consi already provided one, in his/her response to you above.  Consi’s formal definition of “maladaptive” is: “a bad thing”.

That doesn’t stop me from telling him and his partner that I think that they have seriously psychological problems that are manifested by finding love in another man’s hairy ass.

So then you shouldn’t have a problem with us telling you that you have some serious psychological problems that are manifested by your belief in an invisible superfriend who gives you the “choice” of either worshiping him or spending all of eternity burning in a lake of fire. That’s easily as screwed up as what you’re complaining about.

Zilch, I know. My basic point is these debates are just an exercise in futility, but perhaps the odd lurker or two would benefit if they are conducted more formally. To that end, definitions should be provided up front and the topic of the debate clearly articulated. Then again, one could also ask up front if the opposition to homosexual marriage has any argument other than “I don’t like gays” to cut through a lot of crap.

Oh, and elwed- you wanted a formal definition of “maladaptive�? from consi.  Silly you- consi already provided one, in his/her response to you above.  Consi’s formal definition of “maladaptive�? is: “a bad thing�?.

Nice.

My basic point is these debates are just an exercise in futility, but perhaps the odd lurker or two would benefit if they are conducted more formally. To that end, definitions should be provided up front and the topic of the debate clearly articulated.

I’m inclined to agree with you.  Any thoughts on how to make it more of a point by point discussion would be appreciated.  My experience thus far is that I’m typically faced with facing 4-5 responses to any one post, most raising different, but related issues and some just ranting.  Makes it difficult to respond to all. Further, with multiple parties parties participating in any discussion, a linear discussion is difficult. 

Take out “psychological�? and put in “biblical�?, and we’ve got a more accurate assessment of the “problem�?.

Mischaracterize my position if it makes you feel better, but my opinions about homosexuality are not biblical in the least, no matter how much you would like them to be.

What’s interesting, though, is that the opposition increasingly sounds like they all read the same debating guide…

Yep, they just handed out the updated version at the Children’s Mass yesterday. I was paging through it this morning to make sure I’m current. 

Nunya:  Was amused that you would refer anyone to an even semi-religious site given your prior posts about how mindless those that believe in God are.  Mindless when there position contradicts yours, brilliant thinkers when they are on the same page.  That’s just too good.

Thank you for the greetings regarding the Winter Solstace.  Although I don’t celebrate that particular event, it was nice to see that you could be sociable.

Les:

FYI--My gay buddy is Christian.  He’s Anglican to be more specific. 

Regards,

Consigliere: Nice.

Okay, so we have it on record that the formal definition of “maladaptive behaviur�? is: “a bad thing�?. I was hoping for something more substantial, but so be it.

Yep, they just handed out the updated version at the Children’s Mass yesterday. I was paging through it this morning to make sure I’m current.

Ha ha, stop, you’re killing me. My point stands, however.

My point stands, however.

Shoot. I forgot what that point was.  Was it that that nobody knows what the word “behaviur” means?

Merry Christmas El,