North Carolina Passes Amendment Banning Same-sex Unions

[Kralizec]

This is where the "civil rights" argument falls apart for homosexual marriage. On one hand, it what race you were born with, on the other, it's what gender you prefer to have sex with. There's no equivalence.

They're not entirely analogous, to be sure. But if refusing to allow a gay couple to marry is not a form of discrimination, as several people have argued, then banning interracial marriage isn't either. Under the latter, everybody's entitled to marry someone within their own racial grouping but not from outside. I.E. whites can only marry whites, blacks can only marry blacks and so on.

Abolishing sexual prejudice by slices?

No, I don't accept that. If it's wrong it's wrong, preferencing homosexuals because they have a big media lobby against polyamorous groups, who potentially need the protection more because their living arrangements produce children naturally, is just even more wrong.

It's much more wrong than the current situation. It's like letting Methodists vote in England, but not Catholics.

Oh, and nice sideswipe at my "monstrous" religion.

I prefer your clever trolls though.

Except that homosexuality doesn't fall into the same catagory as polyginy or polyandry. Homosexuality is a sexual orientation, just like heterosexuality is, while being partial to group love isn't. Homosexuality has been convincingly shown to be biologically determined- a fairly large part of the population quite simply is homosexual. Also the changes required in legislation, fiscal regulations and whatnot to make gay marriage possible are minimal; while the same can't be said for polyamorous groupings.

[ICantSpellDawg]

They're not entirely analogous, to be sure. But if refusing to allow a gay couple to marry is not a form of discrimination, as several people have argued, then banning interracial marriage isn't either. Under the latter, everybody's entitled to marry someone within their own racial grouping but not from outside. I.E. whites can only marry whites, blacks can only marry blacks and so on.




Except that homosexuality doesn't fall into the same catagory as polyginy or polyandry. Homosexuality is a sexual orientation, just like heterosexuality is, while being partial to group love isn't. Homosexuality has been convincingly shown to be biologically determined- a fairly large part of the population quite simply is homosexual. Also the changes required in legislation, fiscal regulations and whatnot to make gay marriage possible are minimal; while the same can't be said for polyamorous groupings.

Bull. This was bull years ago and is bull today. The verdict is still out on the Born that way assumption. Its still just a guess and most studies just mark their results and allow you to determine what is likely. I do like your willingness to just wing it, though.

[Kralizec]

Bull. This was bull years ago and is bull today. The verdict is still out on the Born that way assumption. Its still just a guess and most studies just mark their results and allow you to determine what is likely. I do like your willingness to just wing it, though.

Nope. Since 1989, possibly before that, there's been scientific proof of neurological differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals. And this has been confirmed in more recent researches.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Funny most of those thing condeming homosexuality also condem adultery and divorce.

Yet, nary a peep.

One must learn to seperate his religous morals from his secular ones. A society is built upon compromise

I'm pretty sure I've said that divorce is too available - and that adulterers should be prosecuted for perjury.

Nope. Since 1989, possibly before that, there's been scientific proof of neurological differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals. And this has been confirmed in more recent researches.

While this is true - it begs the question of why the population of people engaging in homsexual sex is so low today and why it was higher historically. It seems unlikely we have all but bread it out in the last 2,000 years - so the only alternative is to conclude that the neurological differences are not deterministic.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

While this is true - it begs the question of why the population of people engaging in homsexual sex is so low today and why it was higher historically. It seems unlikely we have all but bread it out in the last 2,000 years - so the only alternative is to conclude that the neurological differences are not deterministic.

If I recall correctly psychopathy has a genetic factor but requires a certain kind of upbringing to manifest itself.

This is another interesting area that I think gets shafted due to the way we debate this issue.

Anyway, it's quite possible that there is a genetic factor for all kinds of unusual sexual preferences.

[Kralizec]

I'm pretty sure I've said that divorce is too available - and that adulterers should be prosecuted for perjury.



While this is true - it begs the question of why the population of people engaging in homsexual sex is so low today and why it was higher historically. It seems unlikely we have all but bread it out in the last 2,000 years - so the only alternative is to conclude that the neurological differences are not deterministic.

It doesn't have to be a genetic cause (and even if it were; it could be a recessive gene). I think one explanation that's quite in vogue nowadays is hormonal fluctuations in the mother's womb, but I'm no expert - or even a particulary interested layman.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I.... agree with this. Completely.

So, who wants to go first? PVC or Tuffstuff? No ranged weapons, name your poison. I pick the venue.

I don't believe in solving problems by violence - or gladiatorial combat.

It doesn't have to be a genetic cause (and even if it were; it could be a recessive gene). I think one explanation that's quite in vogue nowadays is hormonal fluctuations in the mother's womb, but I'm no expert - or even a particulary interested layman.

The problem with this approach is that it is highly regressive, it medicalises homosexuality. It's notable that exactly this medicalisation used to be held by the establishment until 1989 when the first biological links were actually found. At that point the Gay-right lobby went from, "we should be free to choose who we love" to "we were born this way".

More importantly, if homosexuality has a pathology it can be modified, i.e. homosexuals can be made heterosexual - a claim violently denied by the rights-lobby.

I know Frag wants me to accept I'm a narcicist so I'll seek treatment - because that's a medical condition and he presumably thinks I'll be happier.

If I said the same to a homosexual I would not get a positive response.

[Montmorency]

More importantly, if homosexuality has a pathology it can be modified, i.e. homosexuals can be made heterosexual - a claim violently denied by the rights-lobby.

In the same way that sensation of pain, or of anger, or individuality, or religious belief could hypothetically be modified. I'm surprised you are going there.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Nope. Since 1989, possibly before that, there's been scientific proof of neurological differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals. And this has been confirmed in more recent researches.

Links?
I remember a study where Identical twins have the same sexual orientation just over 50% of the time. Same DNA sequences, same wombs, usually similar upbringing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology...al_orientation

You had better go and delete a few of those wiki entries, they are spreading vicious lies about your unscientific faith.

[Kralizec]

Links?
I remember a study where Identical twins have the same sexual orientation just over 50% of the time. Same DNA sequences, same wombs, usually similar upbringing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology...al_orientation

You had better go and delete a few of those wiki entries, they are spreading vicious lies about your unscientific faith.

That only discredits the theory that homosexuality only has a genetic cause. The wiki article you quoted even mentions that identical twins do not necessarily receive the same influx of hormones during pregnancies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monochorionic_twins

I was mostly thinking about a Dutch researcher called Dick Swaab when I wrote my previous post; he is mentioned several times in that wiki.

[The Stranger]

That only discredits the theory that homosexuality only has a genetic cause. The wiki article you quoted even mentions that identical twins do not necessarily receive the same influx of hormones during pregnancies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monochorionic_twins

I was mostly thinking about a Dutch researcher called Dick Swaab when I wrote my previous post; he is mentioned several times in that wiki.

hes apparantly been threathened with death by gay right activists for that study :P

[Kralizec]

Not sure if there were any death threats, but it's true that some of them (in particular the COC) weren't happy about his research. They thought that they were gay by choice, and were proud of the choice. Or something like that.

I remember he gave a speech at my university several years ago. One of the things he found out back in 1990 was the difference in size of the hypothalamus in gay males. He then showed a bunch of contact advertisements he found in papers and such in the early 90-ies; such as "Man with huge hypothalamus is looking for..."