News Federal Judge Strikes Down Prop 8: California Gay Marriage Ban

[Ivan Seeking]

Good point, churches don't have to perform marriage ceremonies for same sex couples. So they should not get involved with legal definitions, unless they want to admit that they are a political organization and give up their tax exempt status.

BTW, I am without sin because I am without a religion that tells me so.

Yes, the church and I part ways when they try to impose their view of morality on everyone else. I understand intervention in cases of human rights violations, but simple morality arguments belong in church, not in the voting booth or state legislature.

I am a dreadful sinner. Just ask Tsu. She'll tell you all about it.

 

[Hurkyl]

I agree. I only hope you won't have to test your convictions about marriage in a court of law.

Er, okay?

 

[Evo]

Here is one of the radio ads that flooded us in 2008. Note the fear-mongering about churches losing their tax exemptions.

What amazes me is the amount of time, effort, and money that goes into a campaign against our fellow humans that could have been used to do something for people that are in need. It's this kind of activity that turns people against organized religion. When religion is used as a weapon to hurt people that they irrationally fear, I can't condone it.

I want to believe that the majority of people that consider themselves religious do not condone this sort of activity. My mother was a devout catholic and the most open minded person I've ever known. My father was an atheist and was a closed minded, racist, bigot. I could see him backing this sort of hate campaign against gays and my mother being opposed to it.

 

[ZQrn]

BTW, I am without sin because I am without a religion that tells me so.

By this logic, I am without evil if I kill a man when I do not believe killing is wrong.

The point about religious / moral dogmata is that people typically also hold you accountable even if you never said you shared the view.

Morals have all the qualities of an organized (state) religion by the way.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

True. Churches have remarkable latitude in their right of association, too. No church can be forced to be racially inclusive, for example.

I strongly suspect that this lies at the heart of many objections from the religious community. Not sure, but it may even be true to say that I have seen no exceptions: All religious people with whom I've discussed this matter seem to think churches would be required to perform gay marriages.

 

[Evo]

I keep hearing about religious involvement, but what about non-religious homophobes?

Not all religious people are homophobes!

 

[Hurkyl]

Aside: is there a word for someone who simply dislikes homosexuality? I don't buy that that phrase is synonymous with fear of homosexuality.

 

[turbo]

What amazes me is the amount of time, effort, and money that goes into a campaign against our fellow humans that could have been used to do something for people that are in need. It's this kind of activity that turns people against organized religion. When religion is used as a weapon to hurt people that they irrationally fear, I can't condone it.

The Catholic Church took up special collections and used half a million dollars to finance ads, along with another $1.9M from the National Organization for Marriage. That money could have done a lot of good work. Instead it went to pay for ads to deny gay people equitable treatment under the law.

The church also pulled funding from the Preble Street homeless shelter because the shelter didn't endorse the church's anti-gay views. At the time, the director (IIR) of the shelter explained that friction due to sexual orientation was a significant cause of homelessness in young people, but the church didn't relent, asked for previous donations to be returned and canceled future funding.

 

[ZQrn]

Aside: is there a word for someone who simply dislikes homosexuality? I don't buy that that phrase is synonymous with fear of homosexuality.

If we want to interpret it literally a 'homophobia' is simply a fear for the same thing [as some other thing] anyway. Phrases are often idiomatic and don't reduce to the sum of their parts. To begin with 'homosexual' is hardly a word, it is neither Latin nor Greek and when struck together would mean 'same-sided' or something like that. Homophile however is etymologically more sensible but would mean 'fear for the same'. Purely in Greek, a homosexual male would be called androphilos and a female gynophila probably.

I never really got why all these terms need to be Latin or Greek, because more often than not they are neither when they are invented these days.

So just say 'person that hates homosexual' or 'gayhater', just keep it English, all making all these 'technical' terms Latin or Greek is pretentious and often ends up being neither really.

The Catholic Church took up special collections and used half a million dollars to finance ads, along with another $1.9M from the National Organization for Marriage. That money could have done a lot of good work. Instead it went to pay for ads to deny gay people equitable treatment under the law.

Not at all, the money was collected explicitly for that purpose, and people gave their money explicitly for that purpose to the church, this is democracy at work I fear.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Aside: is there a word for someone who simply dislikes homosexuality? I don't buy that that phrase is synonymous with fear of homosexuality.

This is one thing that I don't think homosexuals appreciate: Some of us are simply repulsed by the notion. I think this is just as biological as is their attraction to the same sex.

This only applies to men, however. Two women together are another matter altogether. Heck, I'll pay to see that!

 

[edward]

I keep hearing about religious involvement, but what about non-religious homophobes?

Not all religious people are homophobes!

That is a good point so why are there homophobes? Is the word homophobe too strong for people who simply are following the basic instincts of nature and human survival.

The human race evolved in part based on an aversion to anything that would not allow it to thrive.

It is natural to have an aversion to any activity that does not promote reproduction. It has been built into many people along with many other aversions and instincts.

We don't all lose our basic instincts easily. My father-in-law had a stroke a few years back. His left arm was curling inward as tends to happen in stroke victims.

I had a long talk with the best physical therapist available. He explained to me about the latest science relating to the phenomena of the curling arm. He told me: "It is a basic instinct to hang on to the tree". In this case it isn't even a conscious instinct.

For many people the instincts and aversions we evolved with aren't necessarily that easily overcome by applying knowledge.

It boils down to how deeply the aversion to anything goes. Everyone is different. There are certain bodily functions that we all remain private about.

The good news is that most aversions can be over come but it does take time. I remember the first time I say my father gut a rabbit, I nearly puked. Now I can gut an animal myself with no problem.

Just my opinion , but I think that the gay community pushed too far too fast. When they mentioned marriage a lot of red flags began to fly.

This is just common sense and a bit of biology, don't expect a link.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The Catholic Church took up special collections and used half a million dollars to finance ads, along with another $1.9M from the National Organization for Marriage. That money could have done a lot of good work. Instead it went to pay for ads to deny gay people equitable treatment under the law...

I know how they justify this: They are trying to prevent the innocent from being corrupted. They are trying to save souls. They may even believe that they are trying to save the country. As you know, God recognizes borders.

 

[ZQrn]

This is one thing that I don't think homosexuals appreciate: Some of us are simply repulsed by the notion. I think this is just as biological as is their attraction to the same sex.

This only applies to men, however. Two women together are another matter altogether. Heck, I'll pay to see that!

'Biological', those are such strong words. At the moment there is little reason to assume that homosexuality or heterosexuality is anything more than 'taste', some men have a preference for blonds, some for brunettes, and some for other men. The nonexistence of this so-called 'gay gene' that people have been trying to find together with the documented existence of societies where it was extremely common seem to imply that like any other form of taste, it is subject to fashion, can be acquired, and has a nurture and nature component to it.

Homosexuality to me is as simple as being attracted to per exemple very small women, it's not extremely common, but that's all there is to it.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

'Biological', those are such strong words. At the moment there is little reason to assume that homosexuality or heterosexuality is anything more than 'taste', some men have a preference for blonds, some for brunettes, and some for other men. The nonexistence of this so-called 'gay gene' that people have been trying to find together with the documented existence of societies where it was extremely common seem to imply that like any other form of taste, it is subject to fashion, can be acquired, and has a nurture and nature component to it.

Homosexuality to me is as simple as being attracted to per exemple very small women, it's not extremely common, but that's all there is to it.

So then you are really saying that being gay is a choice. Gay men could be reconditioned to be straight.

You are essentially making the Church's argument here.

 

[Evo]

I understand that some people don't find homosexuality appealing. I don't find the thought of two 1,000 pound humans attempting to copulate appealing either, but I am not going to deny them the right to marry.

 

[lisab]

I understand that some people don't find homosexuality appealing. I don't find the thought of two 1,000 pound humans attempting to copulate appealing either, but I am not going to deny them the right to marry.

*snork*

That made me laugh

 

[vela]

So then you are really saying that being gay is a choice. Gay men could be reconditioned to be straight.

You are essentially making the Church's argument here.

Actually, the churchs' argument against gay marriage doesn't depend on whether homosexuality is a choice or not. The argument is merely: (1) marriage is sacred commitment made before their god, and (2) their god said homosexuality is wrong. To the church, it doesn't matter whether an individual was born gay or chose to be gay. It's just wrong.

 

[Math Is Hard]

I understand that some people don't find homosexuality appealing. I don't find the thought of two 1,000 pound humans attempting to copulate appealing either, but I am not going to deny them the right to marry.

Oh, thanks, Evo. I was trying to have lunch.

 

[ZQrn]

So then you are really saying that being gay is a choice. Gay men could be reconditioned to be straight.

No, I didn't say that at all.

At least, as far as I know, people don't have a 'choice' to suddenly start liking blonds if they first liked brunettes. Or suddenly consciously decide 'Hey, let's like women with a B cup instead of a D cup from now on.'

But the simply fact that there are documented societies where virtually all members were at least what they call 'bisexual' leaves it to be prima facie so that indeed, environmental factors play a role in determining the preference, just like in any other taste.

Also, there is not a passage in the bible that says that homosexuality is wrong, nor does the bible speak of homosexuality. The bible says that two men having sex is wrong and is remarkably silent about two women. And that should be seen in context because it's in the part that basically says that all forms of lust that don't lead to children are wrong. Basically the idea was that you cannot have sex for sex alone, you need to do it to breed. Of course, that implies that two men having sex is quite wrong. Two women having sex was comparatively rarer in those days. Of course, this was the old testament, the same book that tells you how many slaves you may keep and how you should punish them for disobedience and how you can hit your wife is she is not obedient et cetera.

Also, do take in mind that at the time the old testament was written, the category of 'homosexuality' didn't really exist, what existed was indeed men having sex with other men. People didn't think of 'gay' versus 'straight', at some point, guys, who most often also had a wife, just basically wanted to get it on with a guy as well. Essentially all or most men were what they today call 'bi-curious'. The view the modern west has on homosexuality, as in a category that you can neatly put people into is indeed a view that is mostly limited to the modern west.

I understand that some people don't find homosexuality appealing. I don't find the thought of two 1,000 pound humans attempting to copulate appealing either, but I am not going to deny them the right to marry.

They don't find it 'unappealing', they find it morally wrong.

It's the same principle by which drugs are banned essentially. The same principles by which incest is banned, the same reason for which pornography used to be banned, the same reason suicide is in various countries illegal and so on. People have a tendency to craft what they call 'victim-less crimes'.

 

[Evo]

They don't find it 'unappealing', they find it morally wrong.

Some may only object to it on moral grounds, but I always hear it described as being "disgusting", appalling, etc...

 

[ZQrn]

Some may only object to it on moral grounds, but I always hear it described as being "disgusting", appalling, etc...

People also describe masturbation on lolicon for instance as 'disgusting', while they find it morally wrong.

At least, we can agree on that there is a difference between 'my stomach turns over when I see it' and 'this is bad, this shouldn't happen, people shouldn't do this'.

The point is that you're facing a group of people who find two grown men having romantic love for one another as wrong on a moral level as most people find one grown man having the very same love for an eight year old boy. That's their vision on the matter.

And you could put forth 'But this isn't damaging to one party', but it is in their world, to begin with, some of them believe those men may go to hell if they die before they are 'turned', so in their world, they are actually helping them / us..

 

[vertices]

At least, we can agree on that there is a difference between 'my stomach turns over when I see it' and 'this is bad, this shouldn't happen, people shouldn't do this'.

Well many people do actually have feelings of revulsion, but there is no "biological basis" for these feelings - they arise purely from irresponsible parenting and/or people growing up in a corrosively conservative (read: homophobic) environment/society.

And ofcourse, we all know that homophobia is basically a narcissistic, male rape anxiety which itself stems from ridiculous, socially constructed gender roles...

 

[ThomasT]

I'm surprised I don't see a thread about this already up.
A federal judge struck down California's constitutional amendment banning gay marriage today.
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2010/08/04/california-same-sex-marriage.html
The ruling will be appealed, of course, and will likely end up in the Supreme Court. This ruling is a huge step in the right direction for equality and civil rights.

Whether one thinks it's right or wrong, it's a pretty good bet that California will have same sex marriage after all the 'legal' stuff is over.

I have never heard a single sensible argument against same-sex marriage.

Well, there are 'sensible' (as opposed to emotional or religious or strictly cultural, or whatever) arguments against it. But no really good ones these days. My opinion is that since there are so many gay people, then if we just let them be gay and treat them as human beings, then things will probably work out ok. I mean, I can sort of understand it, but then again not really identify with it. And so what? I don't really understand Christians and Muslims either, but I think they should be allowed to marry each other if they want to.

The government cannot discriminate based on gender without some compelling state interest.

The government can do anything it wants to -- if it wants to do it bad enough. But, in the case of gay marriage, there is more to be lost than to be gained by supporting a ban on it. An extremely high percentage of gays actually vote (unlike Americans on the whole, so to speak).

 

[DanP]

This is one thing that I don't think homosexuals appreciate: Some of us are simply repulsed by the notion. I think this is just as biological as is their attraction to the same sex.

This only applies to men, however. Two women together are another matter altogether. Heck, I'll pay to see that!

I don't think the repulsion it's biological at all. It's all in your head, playing games with you.

I used to hate gay ppl, man actually. To think there is nothing more repulsive than that. To make fun of gay man and taunt them in every way possible. To think they are sick and they need a cure. Weird enough at the same time I was consuming girl on girl porn with no problems, I never found 2 women involved in sex disgusting.

All this changed when I got to know gay ppl better. I realized I am in no way better than them, and they are not sick creature which need to be confined somewhere. I realized that the disgust is self induced. Eventually, I got over it and learned to accept them, and cease the taunting and the mocking, and I slowly shifted politically from a man who would deny gay anything to a supporter of their campaigns.

I still can't understand their sexual orientation and the intricacies of their sexual behavior. Its quite alien to me. But it's not required to understand. If you accept that they are healthy human beings, you can't deny them the same rights straight ppl have.

 

[Al68]

I have never heard a single sensible argument against same-sex marriage.

I have a good argument against it: Gay people have suffered enough already.

 

[ZQrn]

Well many people do actually have feelings of revulsion, but there is no "biological basis" for these feelings - they arise purely from irresponsible parenting and/or people growing up in a corrosively conservative (read: homophobic) environment/society.

Yes, so what of it? I'm just pointing out how it is from their perspective, what you need to know to successfully argue with them.

And there is hardly ever a biological basis for moral dogma. Why do we think killing is bad, slavery is bad, female oppression is bad? Because we were raised / brainwashed to believe it. Upbringing is brainwashing and there is really no way to differentiate between which morals are 'good' and which aren't without delving into 'I'm right, you're wrong'.

And to be quite fair, there is a certain evolutionary explanation slash justification for homophobia, they don't reproduce that much, but they still take up resources, if reproduction is your axiom, then expulsion of homosexuals is a consequence thereof.

Of course, it should be pointed out that modern human democracies display all the characteristics of a hive, a homosexual still has a job, with that job he fulfills a specialized purpose that serves a function in the hive that enables the heterosexuals to reproduce better. If a homosexual man is a baker, then the provides bread for young children from heterosexuals for instance. So the argument from reproduction can be refuted.

And ofcourse, we all know that homophobia is basically a narcissistic, male rape anxiety which itself stems from ridiculous, socially constructed gender roles...

Do we know this? This seems fairly speculative to me.

Is fair of paedophiles the believe that your own children are some-how so attractive that any random paedophile would develop sexual feelings for them?

Is fair of incest the narcissism that your own first degree relatives find your attractive?

I still can't understand their sexual orientation and the intricacies of their sexual behavior. Its quite alien to me. But it's not required to understand. If you accept that they are healthy human beings, you can't deny them the same rights straight ppl have.

Given your forum name, I shall assume you male (for sake of argument), correct me if I'm wrong.

A: Can you understand your own attraction to females?
B: Can you understand it if another male has the same attraction?
C: Can you understand t if a female has the very same attraction?

D: Can you understand a female having attraction to male?
E: Can you understand a male having the very same attraction?

F: Can you understand the position that some one does not notice / does not care for the quality of 'gender' and as such consequently is attracted to either gender without really being consciously aware of which it is [this time].

 

[Al68]

'Biological', those are such strong words. At the moment there is little reason to assume that homosexuality or heterosexuality is anything more than 'taste', some men have a preference for blonds, some for brunettes, and some for other men. The nonexistence of this so-called 'gay gene' that people have been trying to find together with the documented existence of societies where it was extremely common seem to imply that like any other form of taste, it is subject to fashion, can be acquired, and has a nurture and nature component to it.

Homosexuality to me is as simple as being attracted to per exemple very small women, it's not extremely common, but that's all there is to it.

One thing that seems obvious is that a "gay gene" if it exists, would be eliminated by evolution. A preference for brunettes doesn't hinder reproduction. A brunette can have your baby.

Of course societal pressure to marry and reproduce may allow a "gay gene" to survive, but if that's the case, and homosexuality is genetic, that will become obvious in a few generations.

 

[Al68]

It is natural to have an aversion to any activity that does not promote reproduction.

I would think the natural aversion would be to things that don't perpetuate one's own genes. It would make sense genetically for a man to be averse to lesbian activity but not male homosexuality of others, since the former would reduce one's reproductive opportunities, while the latter would increase them. It seems this is the opposite of reality for most straight men.

Personally, I would like nothing more than for every man on Earth except me to be homosexual, while every woman on Earth is straight. (Except the ugly ones). That would be very beneficial to the perpetuation of my genes.

 

[ZQrn]

One thing that seems obvious is that a "gay gene" if it exists, would be eliminated by evolution. A preference for brunettes doesn't hinder reproduction. A brunette can have your baby.

Well, there is still a gene for haemophilia around, surely it hinders reproduction a lot, yet it has survived, it is not common, but it survived.

Evolution can do no more than minimizing in general, at least, when the gene is recessive.

What I find preposterous is that in the 50's the consensus of 'specialists' was that homosexuality was due to bad parenting and all those things, while in the 80's-90's they all thought it was 'born' and there was even a gene that caused it, while neither of both hypotheses have ever seen a solid proof. Indeed, the gay gene obviously does not exist because of identical twins of which one of both is gay.

Another thing is that there is no objective way to define or 'diagnose' homosexuality but the claims of the subject. Which leaves me to assume that it's not as hard as some people may think. Together with the documented existence of societies which treated sexuality quite fluid, I am quite sceptical to homosexuality as such a 'hard' category as many western 'specialists' assume it is.

Of course societal pressure to marry and reproduce may allow a "gay gene" to survive, but if that's the case, and homosexuality is genetic, that will become obvious in a few generations.

Interestingly, there are a lot of documented societies where homosexuality was pretty much accepted, nay, encouraged.

Also, homosexuality in nature seems to correlate with a higher intelligence. And let's face it, sex in human beings isn't all about reproduction, it fulfills a social role, a way to communicate as well. If homosexuality is a disease, then so is being willing to use a condom.

 

[Al68]

If homosexuality is a disease, then so is being willing to use a condom.

Plus gay sex is probably more reliable as a birth control method. What are the odds of getting a male partner pregnant?

Seriously, I never referred to homosexuality as a disease. I just pointed out that evolution discriminates between behavioral tendencies based on their effect on reproduction. So if homosexuality is genetic, it seems likely that societal pressure to "stay in the closet" ironically would increase the actual percentage of homosexuals in a society, while societal acceptance would decrease the percentage.

 

[ZQrn]

Seriously, I never referred to homosexuality as a disease.

I never said or implied or intended that you did.

I just pointed out that evolution discriminates between behavioral tendencies based on their effect on reproduction. So if homosexuality is genetic, it seems likely that societal pressure to "stay in the closet" ironically would increase the actual percentage of homosexuals in a society, while societal acceptance would decrease the percentage.

It's really not that simple there in the case of a social species.

Let us assume for sake of argument that homosexual men are more caring than heterosexual men, then for instance, if your older brother is a homosexual, who then cares more for you, your chances of survival increase. Of course, siblings, statistically, are genetically as identical as a parent and a child. Thereby, by being homosexual, that brother ensures the survival of his siblings, who share some of his genetic material, that when combined with another partner may also induce the oldest brother of that offspring to be homosexual...

Evolution really is not that simple as often posited.

 

[Al68]

Let us assume for sake of argument that homosexual men are more caring than heterosexual men, then for instance, if your older brother is a homosexual, who then cares more for you, your chances of survival increase. Of course, siblings, statistically, are genetically as identical as a parent and a child. Thereby, by being homosexual, that brother ensures the survival of his siblings, who share some of his genetic material, that when combined with another partner may also induce the oldest brother of that offspring to be homosexual...

Evolution really is not that simple as often posited.

I never said it was simple. If there were any reason to believe that homosexuality was connected with a higher likelihood of sibling survival in the way you mention, then sure it would be a factor. But even then, it would seem pretty unlikely to outweigh the factor of whether or not he has sex with women.

 

[ZQrn]

I never said it was simple. If there were any reason to believe that homosexuality was connected with a higher likelihood of sibling survival in the way you mention, then sure it would be a factor. But even then, it would seem pretty unlikely to outweigh the factor of whether or not he has sex with women.

Not at all, if he can ensure that 2 of his siblings survive to have children themselves where they would not without his aide, then he has done the same as creating two children basically.

Let us not forget that a lot of species have evolved to a system where only the queen can reproduce and all the others serve only to guard the queen so that she may do so.

 

[DanP]

A: Can you understand your own attraction to females?
B: Can you understand it if another male has the same attraction?
C: Can you understand t if a female has the very same attraction?

D: Can you understand a female having attraction to male?
E: Can you understand a male having the very same attraction?

F: Can you understand the position that some one does not notice / does not care for the quality of 'gender' and as such consequently is attracted to either gender without really being consciously aware of which it is [this time].

Whats your point ?

 

[ZQrn]

Whats your point ?

Nothing, I'm just curious, and I can't see that if you're attracted to women, how you can then not understand a random woman having the exact same attraction.

 

[vertices]

And there is hardly ever a biological basis for moral dogma. Why do we think killing is bad, slavery is bad, female oppression is bad? Because we were raised / brainwashed to believe it. Upbringing is brainwashing and there is really no way to differentiate between which morals are 'good' and which aren't without delving into 'I'm right, you're wrong'.

Absolutely.

Do we know this? This seems fairly speculative to me.

Men are seen as hunters and women are seen to look after babies - and these gender roles, which put power in the hands of men, have been ingrained in our minds. Society tells us that it's plainly unacceptable for a camp gay guy to rape a straight male because that would seriously undermine his "masculinity". These are stupid ideas that we must socially deconstruct.

Is fair of paedophiles the believe that your own children are some-how so attractive that any random paedophile would develop sexual feelings for them?

Is fair of incest the narcissism that your own first degree relatives find your attractive?

Paedophilia and incest are wrong because they are damaging to children (in the case of the former) and damaging to the offspring of incestuous couples.

 

[DanP]

Nothing, I'm just curious, and I can't see that if you're attracted to women, how you can then not understand a random woman having the exact same attraction.

I am not a woman. I cannot understand the sexuality of a being I am not. I can't completely understand straight women, much less so gay females. Or the sexuality of gay males for that matter. I cannot fathom whatever happens in their brains. Homosexuals are different, probably both biologically and in their social psychology.

But is not required to understand their sexuality. Live and let live. Many of them are valuable members of the society. They don't do anything wrong. They deserve hapiness as much as the rest of us do.

Btw, I am not talking about scientific understanding. I am sure there are enough psychologists and whatever else who studied homosexuality and have a great deal of scientific understanding of the phenomena.

 

[ZQrn]

Men are seen as hunters and women are seen to look after babies - and these gender roles, which put power in the hands of men, have been ingrained in our minds. Society tells us that it's plainly unacceptable for a camp gay guy to rape a straight male because that would seriously undermine his "masculinity". These are stupid ideas that we must socially deconstruct.

I'm sure sure this is all true, or at least, I'm highly sceptical to this being nature rather than nurture.

Paedophilia and incest are wrong because they are damaging to children

To have sexual fantasies about a child without the child knowing damages the child nowadays?

Also, the idea that children cannot consent to sex is a fairly new idea, the idea used to be that you have to be married and if you're married at 9 years old then having sex is okay. Many US states used to have an age of consent as low as 9 or nonexistent as little as two centuries back, provided you were married of course. Of course, looking at Greece or the Aztecs ...

And if you look at the controversy Rind et al. stirred, it becomes clear that if anything, this is a moral idea, not a scientific or rational idea.

(in the case of the former) and damaging to the offspring of incestuous couples.

What about homosexual incest? Or contraception? And the same could be said about the adopted children of homosexuals who will face some struggle because it's not normal.

Also, the risks of inbreeding are overstated (mostly as a political tool of course to justify banning incest), the point is that, yes, there is a slightly higher chance that children coming from incest have things like haemophilia, but the chances is a lot higher if one of the parents simply has haemophilia. From this argument you can say that people having any inheritable disease having babies to begin with is immoral and damaging to their children, as such you are back at eugenics.

Let's not forget that the European royal house is basically a swamp of incest, for instance, Elizabeth and Philip are related via two different paths, it is such an incestuous business there that they are actually related via multiple paths often.

I'm just saying, these arguments are largely invented to justify a moral, not a rational idea. The only reason it is wrong, is 'because it is wrong', the same reason murder is wrong, it's an axiom, a primitive. And the same reason that to some homosexuality is wrong.

I am not a women. I cannot understand the sexuality of a being I am not. I can't completely understand straight women, much less so gay females. Or the sexuality of gay males for that matter. I cannot fathom whatever happens in their brains. Homosexuals are different, probably both biologically and in their social psychology.

So you can understand heterosexual women, who like men, but not homosexual women, who essentially like what you like?

If anything, what is the furthest removed from you is the heterosexual woman, for she is both what you are not, and is attracted to what you are not attracted to. What's close to you is a homosexual man, for he is what you are. Or a homosexual woman, for she is attracted to what you are attracted to you.

Btw, I am not talking about scientific understanding. I am sure there are enough psychologists and whatever else who studied homosexuality and have a great deal of scientific understanding of the phenomena.

Not at all really, there are a lot of hypotheses, some hypotheses have even been mainstream consensus due to the parrot effect, but no one really knows what's going on, and I think that's because people think there is 'anything' going on and overlook what is in plain sight, that it's just 'taste'.

 

[DanP]

A
Paedophilia and incest are wrong because they are damaging to children (in the case of the former) and damaging to the offspring of incestuous couples.

In the case of incest this type of reasoning is somehow wrong. We live in an age with extremely efficient contraceptive solutions. So why is it still wrong to sleep with you sister ?
You both can use contraceptive measures, so no offspring will result.

There are couples who do not wish to have children. So if you and your sister decide not to have babies, who has the right to sya anything about whatever or not you can marry her ?

 

[DanP]

So you can understand heterosexual women, who like men, but not homosexual women, who essentially like what you like?

If anything, what is the furthest removed from you is the heterosexual woman, for she is both what you are not, and is attracted to what you are not attracted to. What's close to you is a homosexual man, for he is what you are. Or a homosexual woman, for she is attracted to what you are attracted to you.

.

You see, you are debating with me what I should feel more or less remote, and you are amazed of what I can relate to or I can not. You are different. You will not understand me, unless you are like me. Leave it at that.

 

[ZQrn]

You see, you are debating with me what I should feel more or less remote, and you are amazed of what I can relate to or I can not. You are different. You will not understand me, unless you are like me. Leave it at that.

Maybe, but I'm more or less pointing out that it's not the reasons you say it is that you don't understand the attraction.

As in, you said you didn't understand the attraction because you didn't feel or yourself, or because you are not a woman yourself. Yet you do understand the attraction of heterosexual women strangely.

So there seems to be an ulterior reason* for it.

* this is the first time in my life that I saw the word 'ulterior' without being directly followed by 'motive'.

 

[DanP]

As in, you said you didn't understand the attraction because you didn't feel or yourself, or because you are not a woman yourself. Yet you do understand the attraction of heterosexual women strangely.

So there seems to be an ulterior reason* for it.

* this is the first time in my life that I saw the word 'ulterior' without being directly followed by 'motive'.

It may seem so, but there ain't any. Remember, I am wired to be attracted to the opposite sex. For me this is a "biological imperative", much like I drink water and eat.

What makes lesbian different from straight women is exactly the fact they are attracted to the same sex. It makes no difference they like the same thing I do, namely other women. The gap created by the same sex attraction, which is not present in me, is much larger than the "relatedness" created by the fact they like the same thing as me, females.

 

[Monique]

Indeed, the gay gene obviously does not exist because of identical twins of which one of both is gay.

This reasoning is not correct, there is a large amount of literature that shows that monozygotic twins can have discordant phenotypes for 'simple' Mendelian inherited disorders. The reasons for that are diverse, you can check this review:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20468073"

Monozygotic (MZ) twins show remarkable resemblance in many aspects of behavior, health, and disease. Until recently, MZ twins were usually called "genetically identical"; however, evidence for genetic and epigenetic differences within rare MZ twin pairs has accumulated. Here, we summarize the literature on MZ twins discordant for Mendelian inherited disorders and chromosomal abnormalities. A systematic literature search for English articles on discordant MZ twin pairs was performed in Web of Science and PubMed. A total number of 2,016 publications were retrieved and reviewed and 439 reports were retained. Discordant MZ twin pairs are informative in respect to variability of phenotypic expression, pathogenetic mechanisms, epigenetics, and post-zygotic mutagenesis and may serve as a model for research on genetic defects. The analysis of single discordant MZ twin pairs may represent an elegant approach to identify genes in inherited disorders. (c) 2010 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

 

[Al68]

Not at all, if he can ensure that 2 of his siblings survive to have children themselves where they would not without his aide, then he has done the same as creating two children basically.

Based on that logic, one could just as easily claim that evolution favored sterile men if sterile men were more caring toward their siblings. The siblings saved would never outweigh the lack of procreation.

Of course this is all moot, since we have no evidence of any link between sexual orientation and sibling survival anyway.

 

[DanP]

Based on that logic, one could just as easily claim that evolution favored sterile men if sterile men were more caring toward their siblings. The siblings saved would never outweigh the lack of procreation.

Of course this is all moot, since we have no evidence of any link between sexual orientation and sibling survival anyway.

Read kin selection theory. It can explain how such genes have a chance of propagation.

 

[Al68]

Read kin selection theory. It can explain how such genes have a chance of propagation.

I never said the genes wouldn't propagate. I said that they would propagate more in intolerant societies in which homosexuals married and had children than in tolerant societies in which they didn't marry and have children.

It's not an all or none situation, it's more vs less situation.

 

[vertices]

To have sexual fantasies about a child without the child knowing damages the child nowadays?

It is sometimes unhealthy to fantastise.

Let me share an example: I recently discovered this website called foodporn which basically has pictures of irresistible foods - the other day, I couldn't restrain myself, I literally walked down to the supermarket and grabbed a million calorie snack item... I have since deleted that website from my favourites!

Also, the idea that children cannot consent to sex is a fairly new idea, the idea used to be that you have to be married and if you're married at 9 years old then having sex is okay. Many US states used to have an age of consent as low as 9 or nonexistent as little as two centuries back, provided you were married of course. Of course, looking at Greece or the Aztecs ...

And if you look at the controversy Rind et al. stirred, it becomes clear that if anything, this is a moral idea, not a scientific or rational idea.

It is scientific insofar as we've learned a lot about child psychology and physiology since the 18th Century. Children are simply not able (physically and emotionally) to consent to sex.

What about homosexual incest? Or contraception? And the same could be said about the adopted children of homosexuals who will face some struggle because it's not normal.

There is a very simple moral principle that is relevant here: namely, you can do whatever you like as long as you don't harm anyone else. It's not for me or anyone else to pass judgement on anyone who sticks to this principle...

Also, the risks of inbreeding are overstated (mostly as a political tool of course to justify banning incest), the point is that, yes, there is a slightly higher chance that children coming from incest have things like haemophilia, but the chances is a lot higher if one of the parents simply has haemophilia. From this argument you can say that people having any inheritable disease having babies to begin with is immoral and damaging to their children, as such you are back at eugenics.

I disagree. Basic genetics tells us that children of incestuous parents have a much greater risk of having a range of diseases (because there is a greater likelihood of recessive alleles for disease coming together). Furthermore, I do believe human beings should endeavour to diversify their gene pool as much as possible - this makes us stronger and fitter.

I'm just saying, these arguments are largely invented to justify a moral, not a rational idea. The only reason it is wrong, is 'because it is wrong', the same reason murder is wrong, it's an axiom, a primitive. And the same reason that to some homosexuality is wrong.

Yes, indeed. I don't get why moral values are seen as synonymous with religious values. Homosexuality has nothing to do with morality...

 

[Monique]

Just to add to the discussion of sexual differentiation, did it ever occur to you that the mother (the womb) might have a large effect on the development of the brain and the sexual orientation?

If not, you should read this:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19403051"

During the intrauterine period the fetal brain develops in the male direction through a direct action of testosterone on the developing nerve cells, or in the female direction through the absence of this hormone surge. In this way, our gender identity (the conviction of belonging to the male or female gender) and sexual orientation are programmed into our brain structures when we are still in the womb. However, since sexual differentiation of the genitals takes place in the first two months of pregnancy and sexual differentiation of the brain starts in the second half of pregnancy, these two processes can be influenced independently, which may result in transsexuality. This also means that in the event of ambiguous sex at birth, the degree of masculinization of the genitals may not reflect the degree of masculinization of the brain. There is no proof that social environment after birth has an effect on gender identity or sexual orientation.

 

[Gokul43201]

They truly dedicate their lives to the service of others. They sacrifice everything based on a philosophy of kindness, love, and public service - service to God. Try spending a month with a priest. Priest and nuns are some of the most selfless people you will ever find.

Thanks for the explanation.

Making a moral judement based on biblical teachings, is not the same as disputing scientific facts based on faith. Are we not still free to draw our own conclusions about morality? Or is this too subject to the whims of the court of popular opinion?

If I understand this correctly, the implication is that it is not brainwashing so long as the teachings are of a moral nature rather than a factual nature. I'd like to point out, by the same argument, that teaching people that it is morally superior to martyr themselves by strapping on a bomb and setting off an explosion in a crowded public square is similarly not a form of brainwashing.

 

[ZQrn]

It is sometimes unhealthy to fantastise.

Let me share an example: I recently discovered this website called foodporn which basically has pictures of irresistible foods - the other day, I couldn't restrain myself, I literally walked down to the supermarket and grabbed a million calorie snack item... I have since deleted that website from my favourites!

This is equivalent to keeping paedophiles away from children as, in, not reminding them of their existence, which is infeasible.

It is scientific insofar as we've learned a lot about child psychology and physiology since the 18th Century. Children are simply not able (physically and emotionally) to consent to sex.

Well, the burden of proof here is yours, so:

- Define what 'not able to consent to sex' means, itself a pretty vague thing, as in, define it in such a way that this can be scientifically tested
- Proof that children within an age you specify (statistically) cannot do this

The reason I am sceptical to the fact that this was ever scientifically documented is that such a research would be highly unethical to conduct of course, you cannot use controlled conditions, you may be able to establish a correlation between for instance neurological problems like depression and sex at an early age, but at the same time you can also say that it's likely that depressed children simply use early sex as an outlet, it's no big secret that some depressed people basically use sex as an antidepressant.

To truly establish this, you would have to use controlled conditions, which is unethical.

Other than that, Rind et al. actually established that even a correlation was pretty weak, and basically stirred a lot of controversy and even hatred and even making the research illegal literature in some places.

Also, the 'age of consent' is different throughout the world, essentially in the Netherland it is considered okay to lose one's virginity at 12-13, it's low here, but not frowned upon per se. In Britain or the US, that would be considered 'not ready'.

And lastly, I don't really know what to think of sciences like 'child psychology', the science revises itself so damned often. 25 years back porn was bad for kids, now it's part of a teenager's natural development for instance, methinks that child psychology is just a vessel for contemporary morals really. A lot of the things child psychologists also claim cannot be tested scientifically without unethical research.

Also, child psychology is a science that deals with 'ought' too much, it seems to be used mainly to tell people how to raise their children, rather than being descriptive.

There is a very simple moral principle that is relevant here: namely, you can do whatever you like as long as you don't harm anyone else. It's not for me or anyone else to pass judgement on anyone who sticks to this principle...

Maybe, maybe not, as I said, I'm at least very sceptical that a 15 year old guy can some how not 'consent' (what ever that means) to sex, especially because it's above the Dutch age of consent. But below that in many other countries. These ages and laws really seem to be made at whim rather than the product of actual research. Also, currently, the trend seems to be over and world wide the age of consent is actually gradually starting to lower again, as do voting ages and all. Same with alcohol, in the US, it's 21, here, it's 16. That's really too much of a deviation for me to still buy that any of those is the product of scientific research, these ages were never investigated and were just produced at whim methinks.

I disagree. Basic genetics tells us that children of incestuous parents have a much greater risk of having a range of diseases (because there is a greater likelihood of recessive alleles for disease coming together). Furthermore, I do believe human beings should endeavour to diversify their gene pool as much as possible - this makes us stronger and fitter.

'much greater' is a ridiculous overstatement. If you have a random illness that you have a chance of P to get if both parents don't have it that is recessive. That means that the chance Q of a random person being a carrier is found by solving: P = (Q/2)^2, so 2*sqrt(P)

So, the chance of a random person having incest being a carrier is of course the same, if that person is a carrier, than the chance is simply 1/2 that first degree family is also a carrier. So, the chance is sqrt(P)/2 that you this one condition if you come from an incestuous union of first degree relatives.

Of course, since chances are smaller than 1, so generally: generally sqrt(P)/2 > P. But say the chance is 10% you get it if your parents are unrelated, it now becomes 15%, that's not that much a difference. Also, as the chance increases you normally got it, it can actually reduce the chance if you come from an incestuous union. After all, if a carrier alele is very common, it implies that if one by chance doesn't have it, so does the likelyhood the other doesn't either.

Also, this still doesn't change the fact that the chance is rediculously higher if you already have such a disease yourself, but children with haemophilia are allowed to have children, whose children are very likely to inherit it. It's a dual standard. It's an argument used to justify it, not an argument that lead to this conclusion.

Also, again, the burden of proof is yours, show me evidence of your unconventional claim that inbreeding has a higher chance of inheritable deficits than simply people with those deficits breading themselves. (which is legal)

Yes, indeed. I don't get why moral values are seen as synonymous with religious values. Homosexuality has nothing to do with morality...

Moral is basically an organized religion.

To be honest, I have more understanding if a man says 'But this is wrong, because some being far more powerful than us that knows all and created this world says it's wrong, and who are we to contest with that?' than if a man says 'This is wrong, it just is.' which is what people without a religion put forth as argument to why certain things are wrong like stealing and killing et cetera.

Monique:

"There is no proof that social environment after birth has an effect on gender identity or sexual orientation.", I'm just wondering? Why is there no proof for this? We all know that SPARTAAANS essentially were mostly at least bisexual and probably simply homosexual. It seems far fetched that this was caused by hormones?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_Japan#Military_same-sex_love

Also, it seems to me that all male military cultures at least seem to correlate with homosexuality. Also, my cousin, a psychologist once told me that it was a statistical correlation that asymmetry in gender count heavily correlates with occurrences of homosexual behaviour, hell, it even seems that prison makes men at least slightly more homosexual. I see an abundance of things that make it hard to just rule out that society can influence once 'orientation' and in fact make it not that much a stone cold fact that such a thing as 'orientation' can even exist.