California Proposition 8

[Sihouette]

Well, you thought I was a screaming liberal...but here is proof that I'm definietly not. That independants and many many democrats are not swayed by the deafening hordes of "do as I do or else!"..

I understand the arguments on both sides of the fence. On the one hand you have two people of the same sex who love each other deeply. Yet on the other hand you have people wanting to define sex as to exist only between men and women. I loved my grandmother very deeply...as deep as you possibly can. Yet I never felt compelled to have sex with her or to marry her. *shudder*. My sexuality was oriented towards men. It truly is about "orientation", in every aspect of the word.

I think the whole phenomenon of being gay is a little hard to understand. I think there may be some people with legitmate hormone imbalances from birth that cause them to be attracted to the same sex. But I also think there are a much wider group of people who have adopted gayness as an impressed behavior. Many people who I know to be gay have admitted to a sexual encounter at an impressionable age of a same-sexed, almost always older or adult perpetrator.

I work with animals breeding. You have to be careful about imprinting breeding behaviors on your young animals. They literally can be trained to mount or accept mounting from anything, even inanimate objects as with AI (artificial insemination) where bulls, boars, stallions etc. are trained to mount dummies. Some will from then on only prefer mounting dummies making them ".Objectum-sexuals and probably subject to their own "rights" movement in their human counterparts...of which exists folks... And once that training is in place, the urges go into auto-pilot and the behavior is set in stone. You can lose many a good breeding stallion or buck or bull that way to same-sexed preference. Ask any rancher about this phenomenon.

If females have access to only females in a herd, they will start mounting each other in frustration. This is especially common in pigs. Some of them will from then on only accept mounting from another female and will attack a male if he tries to "do his thing".

So gayness, IMHO, is potentially both of birth origin, that which I call "true gays" and also of learned origins, that which I call "behavioral gays". The problem is sorting out who is who. And even bigger problems sorting out how we want the definition of marriage to apply to learned behaviors that may not be that person's original sexual (potential) orientation.

ie: if we "normalize" something that does not wholly have origins in immutable DNA, and is instead highly suspected a behavioral phenomenon, then we are mutating our very description of what is normal sexual behavior...and passing on that mutation, since primates like us are "learn-by-example" animals, to future generations via social learning... Some people think this is fantastic. Other people think is teaches young people the wrong thing.

Some homosexuality also seems to be enmeshed rather unsavorily into child predation and imprinting sexuality. Many young girls molested by men grow up to be extremely promiscuous and equate love with sex due to this assault to their growing personas. Promiscuous gays are made from the same cloth so-to-speak. Do we then normalize extreme promiscuity? Do we teach that to our children as "perfectly normal and acceptable"? After all, I know several of these women as adults who become enraged and just as uppity and defensive of their promiscuity as "normal" if it is challenged by another as abnormal..

I don't think we should normalize extreme promiscuity, for many health reasons if for nothing else.

So I guess the bottom line is that before we go on a big crusade for some concept, I think we really need to get to the bottom of understanding it before we assign a label of "normal" to it. Human sexuality is one big morass of intertwined DNA predisposition, impression, social learning, mallealbility, hormones and probably a dozen other things I don't know about and few others do.

Do I think we should descriminate against anyone's sexual orientation when it comes maltreatment? Certainly not. Because as a rancher I can tell you that it is FIXATED IN STONE once it's solidly in place...and that is not always at birth and may include a complex set of occurances during a time when a young person's (animal's) mind and hormonal intricacies are still in formation. On the other hand should we go all the way to the other end of the spectrum and set an example for future generations to aspire to an affected fixation, there by "mistreating" them by assenting to mutate the original definition of sexuality for procreation by errant example ? No, I don't think that should happen either.

Yes, it is the "don't ask, don't tell" argument. And yet not allowing to ask provides protection for the rights and civil enjoyments of privacy for those who are gay. It helps prevent descrimination. Asking gays not to advertise by "telling" is protection for our youth from undue coercion to affiliate one way or another.

And yes, some gays are highly coercive. Many dykes I know (virtually every one) are promiscuous, predatory and think of "converting" straight women to lesbianism as a fun sport. I've heard gay men talk about converting boys. (why do they aspire to "convert" someone's supposed DNA orientation? Do they know too that gayness is learned?) They even have a name for it but that name escapes me right now.. And this just may be my own limited experience; but I know about five lesbians around my age that all have openly and repeatedly hit on young girls from as early an age as 12 on up to 18. (Probably the age they themselves were approached by an older promiscuous and predatory lesbian) And so on.. This is how it works in the herd too. The older ones teaching the young by behavioral example.

Sexuality is a very dicey human/animal behavior that is not fully understood as to the delicate balance of imprinting, hormones and the like. I think until we have a definite grasp on it as to its origins, I don't think we should normalize that which may or may not be normal, before we fully understand it. And we don't yet. That we all can agree on.

*braces for attacks from all sides*

 

[bododie]

The issue is now about law and democracy, in other words, majority rule. Homosexuals have a right to love whomever they want. They don't have the RIGHT to demand that California bend to their will. The voters of California have spoken, and they have as much right to have their voice heard as any special interest group. The fact that this decision was made according to the law of the land, votes, makes it a moot legal issue for now. They can try again when it comes up for another vote. In the meantime, they are cordially invited to move to a state where the laws are more to their liking.

 

[Sihouette]

Well I think we agree on that for the most part. Although if they disagree, they still can stay in California. I don't see why not?

I just think that homosexuality, is an abnormal human behavior. It clearly flies in the face of biology's original purpose for the act of sex. It actually nullifies biology's original purpose for the act of sex since same-sexed sexual pairings never result in young. It's like they want to defy nature on the one hand, yet if they want kids, suddenly they want to embrace it??? If you think about it, homosexuality is defined as "unnatural". So trying to unite it, with marriage (also for the purpose of natural procreation between males and females to beget and rear young), is a bit akward, unworkable and flies in the face of everything marriage was originally defined to be. I think if gays want to be recognized in equality as to unions, we must scrap the whole term "marriage" and just call it "partnership" across the board. Trouble is that marriage was created to keep men responsible for their offspring and a lot of people think that is still a good goal to aspire to..

And then you throw in that human sexuality most likely is a learned behavior..and you really get problems. Do we want a society that teaches its young to hump the same sex? Well it would solve some population problems...but I dunno...

 

[Pandora]

Well, you thought I was a screaming liberal...but here is proof that I'm definietly not. That independants and many many democrats are not swayed by the deafening hordes of "do as I do or else!"..

I understand the arguments on both sides of the fence. On the one hand you have two people of the same sex who love each other deeply. Yet on the other hand you have people wanting to define sex as to exist only between men and women. I loved my grandmother very deeply...as deep as you possibly can. Yet I never felt compelled to have sex with her or to marry her. *shudder*. My sexuality was oriented towards men. It truly is about "orientation", in every aspect of the word.

I think the whole phenomenon of being gay is a little hard to understand. I think there may be some people with legitmate hormone imbalances from birth that cause them to be attracted to the same sex. But I also think there are a much wider group of people who have adopted gayness as an impressed behavior. Many people who I know to be gay have admitted to a sexual encounter at an impressionable age of a same-sexed, almost always older or adult perpetrator.

I work with animals breeding. You have to be careful about imprinting breeding behaviors on your young animals. They literally can be trained to mount or accept mounting from anything, even inanimate objects as with AI (artificial insemination) where bulls, boars, stallions etc. are trained to mount dummies. Some will from then on only prefer mounting dummies making them ".Objectum-sexuals and probably subject to their own "rights" movement in their human counterparts...of which exists folks... And once that training is in place, the urges go into auto-pilot and the behavior is set in stone. You can lose many a good breeding stallion or buck or bull that way to same-sexed preference. Ask any rancher about this phenomenon.

If females have access to only females in a herd, they will start mounting each other in frustration. This is especially common in pigs. Some of them will from then on only accept mounting from another female and will attack a male if he tries to "do his thing".

So gayness, IMHO, is potentially both of birth origin, that which I call "true gays" and also of learned origins, that which I call "behavioral gays". The problem is sorting out who is who. And even bigger problems sorting out how we want the definition of marriage to apply to learned behaviors that may not be that person's original sexual (potential) orientation.

ie: if we "normalize" something that does not wholly have origins in immutable DNA, and is instead highly suspected a behavioral phenomenon, then we are mutating our very description of what is normal sexual behavior...and passing on that mutation, since primates like us are "learn-by-example" animals, to future generations via social learning... Some people think this is fantastic. Other people think is teaches young people the wrong thing.

Some homosexuality also seems to be enmeshed rather unsavorily into child predation and imprinting sexuality. Many young girls molested by men grow up to be extremely promiscuous and equate love with sex due to this assault to their growing personas. Promiscuous gays are made from the same cloth so-to-speak. Do we then normalize extreme promiscuity? Do we teach that to our children as "perfectly normal and acceptable"? After all, I know several of these women as adults who become enraged and just as uppity and defensive of their promiscuity as "normal" if it is challenged by another as abnormal..

I don't think we should normalize extreme promiscuity, for many health reasons if for nothing else.

So I guess the bottom line is that before we go on a big crusade for some concept, I think we really need to get to the bottom of understanding it before we assign a label of "normal" to it. Human sexuality is one big morass of intertwined DNA predisposition, impression, social learning, mallealbility, hormones and probably a dozen other things I don't know about and few others do.

Do I think we should descriminate against anyone's sexual orientation when it comes maltreatment? Certainly not. Because as a rancher I can tell you that it is FIXATED IN STONE once it's solidly in place...and that is not always at birth and may include a complex set of occurances during a time when a young person's (animal's) mind and hormonal intricacies are still in formation. On the other hand should we go all the way to the other end of the spectrum and set an example for future generations to aspire to an affected fixation, there by "mistreating" them by assenting to mutate the original definition of sexuality for procreation by errant example ? No, I don't think that should happen either.

Yes, it is the "don't ask, don't tell" argument. And yet not allowing to ask provides protection for the rights and civil enjoyments of privacy for those who are gay. It helps prevent descrimination. Asking gays not to advertise by "telling" is protection for our youth from undue coercion to affiliate one way or another.

And yes, some gays are highly coercive. Many dykes I know (virtually every one) are promiscuous, predatory and think of "converting" straight women to lesbianism as a fun sport. I've heard gay men talk about converting boys. (why do they aspire to "convert" someone's supposed DNA orientation? Do they know too that gayness is learned?) They even have a name for it but that name escapes me right now.. And this just may be my own limited experience; but I know about five lesbians around my age that all have openly and repeatedly hit on young girls from as early an age as 12 on up to 18. (Probably the age they themselves were approached by an older promiscuous and predatory lesbian) And so on.. This is how it works in the herd too. The older ones teaching the young by behavioral example.

Sexuality is a very dicey human/animal behavior that is not fully understood as to the delicate balance of imprinting, hormones and the like. I think until we have a definite grasp on it as to its origins, I don't think we should normalize that which may or may not be normal, before we fully understand it. And we don't yet. That we all can agree on.

*braces for attacks from all sides*

I am not going to attack you, I think that was the best post I have ever read of yours. I agree with you explained it so well. Great examples you gave also!!

Great post Sil

 

[Sihouette]

Well yes, here the argument for Prop 8 would be welcomed with open arms..lol..

I posted it at a more liberal site though and I don't think it got as nice of a reception. I haven't checked yet. Am afraid to...lol..

It's just how I honestly see the situation. You know everyone was up in arms about Palin interviewing in front of those turkeys getting slaughtered. Yet it was a slice of honesty. I'd like to see a gay man interviewed in front of a massage parlor window with full view of the goings-on behind him as he argues for the social acceptance of gay marriage..

That would be another slice of reality pie. I don't like just going off the cover of the box when I buy something. I like to open the thing and see what's inside.

Bearing all this in mind I have "opened the box" on Palin and McCain and didn't like what I found. I did the same with Obama and wasn't thoroughly impressed as yet...but it was the only other brand for sale and it was better than the other boxes, so I bought it in a pinch...since I was all out of "President" and needed another one for the pantry.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

There are a number of issues raised by Sihouette that I feel the need to address. First and foremost is that drawing conclusions about humans and wild animals from one's experiences with domesticated animals is fallacious. Domesticated animals have lived in unnatural conditions for thousands of generations. One would hardly look to the actions of people born and raised in concentration camps if one wished to study normal human behavior. Just reading the scientific journals about the experiments done on animals will show you how conditions can distort behavior.

Homosexuality among animals in the wilds is very common. Here's a link:
http://www.innovations-report.com/html/reports/life_sciences/report-72574.html

The idea that adult predators make children gay is not supported by scientific research, in fact quite the opposite has been shown in study after study. The myth of all gays being child molestors--while popularized by Anita Bryant's religious group--is without factual basis.

There is no "big crusade" for homosexuality, the crusade is for equal rights for all human beings, this includes homosexuals because there is no scientifically demonstrable downside to being homosexual. Homosexual people can live completely normal, satisfying lives with no risks inherent strictly to their sexual orientation except for the approbrium of other people. All the scientific evidence leads towards the conclusion that homosexuality/bisexuality/heterosexuality are all normal variants in the orientations of humans and animals.

Homosexuality exists, always has in every culture for which we have records, it occurs in more than 1500 species that we know of--especially the higher animals. The number of homosexual people has remained fairly constant, as best we know, no matter how they are persecuted. Twin studies show there to be a genetic component, fertility studies show that there is a genetic component, genetic manipulation studies show that there is a genetic component, disruption of the hormone levels in utero can increase (but not yet decrease) the incidence of homosexual activity in animals when they reach sexual maturity. We know that fat-soluble chemical contaminants masquerade as female hormones in the human body, a fetus in utero is extremely sensitive to these chemicals (dioxin and polychlorinated biphenyls especially).

All the stuff about gay predation can be said about heterosexual predation and there are a lot more heterosexual predators having sex with underage girls than gay predators. But that isn't really the issue, hetero or homo sex is very different than pedophillia. In the same way, extreme promiscuity is neither a gay or straight activity exclusively and it's equally dangerous for anyone.

More later, it's bedtime.

 

[Hobo1]

The essential ingredient in Proposition 8 is about marriage. Should gays be allowed to get married.

What exactly marriage? In my eyes, it is 50% an establishment of a contract between two people to live together, love and care for each other, in good times and bad, etc. The remaining 50% is about a lot of other legal issues, such as what laws apply if you get a divorce, your obligations to children that you make, and your legal benefits under the tax code and a variety of other laws that have special treatment for "married people" (such as company health care, etc).

I am not a member of an organized religion, but I certainly can understand where marriage is also has a religious component - if the couple shares a religious faith.

In my eyes, a partnership between a man and woman should be established by one set of laws, because men and women living together have a whole set of special conditions that do not apply to gay couples. On the other hand, if gay couples do decide to form a partnership, they too should have contract which sets down a uniform set of laws governing their relationship. It should be clear if they have the right to adoption, and a whole lot of other issues that are peculiar to gays.

Frankly, I don't care how if their behavior is established by genes or by their environment. The fact is they are in our world and are entitled to a set of rights and restrictions in the law. But it is not logical to use the same set of rules that apply to the union of a man and a woman.

The whole issue would be made a lot easier if the term "marriage" were left out of all partnerships between two people - straight or gay. IMO, marriage is something that should be the sole purview of organized religion, and left out of the legal system.

 

[Sihouette]

If you really really want to boil this thing down to its essence, it's about primate learning being largely social and the fallout of society approving of two gay people being held up as sexual partners. Marriage is about sexual partnership. Often, but not always, children result from this. And the young human mind is what is at stake in this subject that we weigh before us..

I contend that gayness is not a natural state except perhaps in some isolated cases of genetic hormonal imbalances. I contend that gayness is a learned behavior in that at a certain age young children's minds can be confused as to which gender to pursue for sexual activity. And further, once that preference is set, it is nigh impossible to reset in another direction. How do I come to this conclusion? I know of two lesbians who raised the first lesbian's identical twin daughters. One daughter is fully lesbian and the other is fully hetero now as adults. Conclusion: their sexual preferences were not derived from a genetic predisposition but instead from a complex behavioral mileu since after they were born.

This is about science and human psychology more than anything else.

If we, as a society, within a matrix where social learning can affect any youngster in certain ways, hold up a gay sexual partnership as "approved" and stamped with society's blessings, then look for numbers of homosexual relationships to rise due to "monkey see, monkey do" phenomenon which rules primate behavior, including young and impressionable humans...

If this is appealing to the majority of the voting public, then they may vote that gays be legally married. If this isn't appealing to the majority of the voting public, then they may vote to ban gay marriage.

I'm just saying that before anyone votes, they should take a course on primate behavior and human development before they condone that which may wind up forming a large part of our social structure in the future. Think about the long-term effects of socially condoning any set of behaviors for our kids to look at and subconsciously model themselves after in a permanent way. You can even get things like the republican party. Ok, I just threw that one in for laughs...

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

Hey you have a (dubious) research sample of one.

That is conclusive proof of the conclusion you were seeking.

The desperation of christian 'logic'.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

If you really really want to boil this thing down to its essence, it's about primate learning being largely social and the fallout of society approving of two gay people being held up as sexual partners. Marriage is about sexual partnership. Often, but not always, children result from this. And the young human mind is what is at stake in this subject that we weigh before us..

I contend that gayness is not a natural state except perhaps in some isolated cases of genetic hormonal imbalances. I contend that gayness is a learned behavior in that at a certain age young children's minds can be confused as to which gender to pursue for sexual activity. And further, once that preference is set, it is nigh impossible to reset in another direction. How do I come to this conclusion? I know of two lesbians who raised the first lesbian's identical twin daughters. One daughter is fully lesbian and the other is fully hetero now as adults. Conclusion: their sexual preferences were not derived from a genetic predisposition but instead from a complex behavioral mileu since after they were born.

This is about science and human psychology more than anything else.

If we, as a society, within a matrix where social learning can affect any youngster in certain ways, hold up a gay sexual partnership as "approved" and stamped with society's blessings, then look for numbers of homosexual relationships to rise due to "monkey see, monkey do" phenomenon which rules primate behavior, including young and impressionable humans...

If this is appealing to the majority of the voting public, then they may vote that gays be legally married. If this isn't appealing to the majority of the voting public, then they may vote to ban gay marriage.

I'm just saying that before anyone votes, they should take a course on primate behavior and human development before they condone that which may wind up forming a large part of our social structure in the future. Think about the long-term effects of socially condoning any set of behaviors for our kids to look at and subconsciously model themselves after in a permanent way. You can even get things like the republican party. Ok, I just threw that one in for laughs...

All of this is derived from what passes for "common wisdom" but there is no scentific support for it. In fact quite the opposite is true. If what Sihouette says is true, then societies where gay people were accepted should have had a massive percentage of gay people--it didn't happen. The percentage of gay people in various cultures has apparently remained at a few percent all down through history.

A good source for some modern scientific information about the development of the brain and sexual orientation can be found in THE FEMALE BRAIN by Louanne Brizendine. Another source is Dr. Cynthia Chappell's A BIOLOGICAL EXPLANATION FOR HUMAN SEXUAL ORIENTATION which can be viewed on the net at: http://www.pflaghouston.org/news/headline.htm

People should not be stampeded by anecdotal stories, my experiences with Rev. Fred Phelps should not be used to judge all Christians, nor should anyone's personal experiences be applied carte blanche to millions of people about which one has no knowledge.

 

[vyo476]

If you really really want to boil this thing down to its essence, it's about primate learning being largely social and the fallout of society approving of two gay people being held up as sexual partners. Marriage is about sexual partnership. Often, but not always, children result from this. And the young human mind is what is at stake in this subject that we weigh before us..

Heterosexual marriage may or may not be about "sexual partnership," but sexual partnership is certainly not about marriage - not anymore. The genie is not going back in that bottle lacking something enormously dramatic happening.

I contend that gayness is not a natural state except perhaps in some isolated cases of genetic hormonal imbalances.

Most research today points to homosexuality being a disposition. Homosexuals are no more unnatural than people who are left-handed. In any case, attempting to confine people to a socially-motivated vision of what is "natural" hinders those who might be on the fringe of what most people consider "natural" from doing whatever it is they do. The man who could cure cancer might not because he had to be too focused on keeping people from knowing he was gay and wasn't free enough to devote himself to study. Then again, I suppose the idea that a gay man might cure cancer would cause all kinds of other problems, too.

Under your definition of "naturality," a lot of things would then have to be considered unnatural. Like, for instance, eating things that are more pleasurable than healthy. After all, the primary function of eating is the derivation of sustenance - eating for any other reason is unnatural. So go ahead. Tell the kid at the carnival eating his cotton candy that he's "unnatural."

I contend that gayness is a learned behavior in that at a certain age young children's minds can be confused as to which gender to pursue for sexual activity.

Gender identity is much more complex than this. How do transsexuals fit into your equation?

And further, once that preference is set, it is nigh impossible to reset in another direction.

Identity "reprogramming" is barbaric. Convincing someone to change their mind on something is one thing - rewriting a person's personality is another, significantly more drastic thing. This is the sort of thing one discusses in relation to true sociopaths - like murderers and rapists - people who require some form of mental reconstruction just to keep from harming others. Are you to hold homosexuals to the same treatment, simply for being different?

How do I come to this conclusion? I know of two lesbians who raised the first lesbian's identical twin daughters. One daughter is fully lesbian and the other is fully hetero now as adults. Conclusion: their sexual preferences were not derived from a genetic predisposition but instead from a complex behavioral mileu since after they were born.

It isn't genetic, or at least it probably isn't. That's pretty well established.

Second conclusion: Since one twin was homosexual and one heterosexual, and both had the same (homosexual) parents, wouldn't it also be possible to conclude that homosexual parents don't necessarily raise homosexual children?

This is about science and human psychology more than anything else.

It's also about sociology. In a big, big way.

If we, as a society, within a matrix where social learning can affect any youngster in certain ways, hold up a gay sexual partnership as "approved" and stamped with society's blessings, then look for numbers of homosexual relationships to rise due to "monkey see, monkey do" phenomenon which rules primate behavior, including young and impressionable humans...

And if society disavows homosexuality - stamps "disapproved" instead - what happens to the millions of people who are dispositionally homosexual? Conscious social rejection of minority groups gets really nasty really fast.

If this is appealing to the majority of the voting public, then they may vote that gays be legally married. If this isn't appealing to the majority of the voting public, then they may vote to ban gay marriage.

Or, if they realize that marriage is a largely personal institution and shouldn't be legislated by force of government, they should vote to de-institutionalize marriage altogether.

I'm just saying that before anyone votes, they should take a course on primate behavior and human development before they condone that which may wind up forming a large part of our social structure in the future. Think about the long-term effects of socially condoning any set of behaviors for our kids to look at and subconsciously model themselves after in a permanent way. You can even get things like the republican party. Ok, I just threw that one in for laughs...

And I'm saying, "so what?" If we really want our children to be free to express their individuality, we have to start making choices about what behaviors that we don't necessarily like ourselves we have to open ourselves up to for the sake of giving them a level playing field. If you really feel that homosexuality - which doesn't harm anyone - is something you need to make sure your kids don't accept, I suppose that's your decision - but for the record, I think it's a terrible mistake.

 

[Plainspeaker]

The religious right seem very adept at presenting very weak evidence as factual support of their divisive views

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

I would also like to know where transsexual people fit into the worldview that you have, Sihouette.

Being a transsexual, I am often dismayed at the lack of information in public domain where we are concerned, many people don't know the difference between gay and trans people, nor do they understand that the punitive laws applied to homosexuals get applied to us as well even though we are no more likely to homosexually oriented than any other group.

 

[Plainspeaker]

Extreme right wing political groups have always sought to criminalise sexuality that is anything other than hetero. It is my belief that the usually male dominated world of right wing groups with their uniforms and symbolism are so obviously camp that they over-compensate by getting tough on gays. I am sure there are many closet homosexuals amongst their number.

That is why you so often see preachers getting caught with male escorts for example.

Those who are confident of their own sexuality rarely see the need to persecute others for theirs.

 

[Sihouette]

Well it sure took you guys a long time!

At least you're here now..

Second conclusion: Since one twin was homosexual and one heterosexual, and both had the same (homosexual) parents, wouldn't it also be possible to conclude that homosexual parents don't necessarily raise homosexual children?

Oh my, such a simple question on its surface and yet so complex when peeling back the layers. I can only briefly tell you that both young women are extremely confused and screwed up in their heads about which way to go. One of their mothers is a devout fundamentalist christian, lesbian who ran a "pleasure shop" in a nearby town selling dildos and sex toys. Her dyke lover was more of a man than most men I know. Which makes me wonder why the lipstick lesbian/christian found her attractive if she was supposed to be more attracted to women... My theory is that the one twin emulated the mannish dyke and the other the lipstick one. And since the lipstick dyke mother was obviously attracted more to a man (ish woman) then that twin adopted heterosexuality...

"Confused" is a word I would use to describe each member of that quartet. And none of them moreso than I am about the situation.

Which brings me back to my point of if some type of relationship isn't fully understood, and may have its roots in dysfunction (in their case: hyper-sexual), AND we know that primates (humans) learn and model their societies by example and copying "aping" behavior of the adults in their group, then what are we doing holding up that behavior as "normal". True, no one has a monopoly on the word "normal". What normal really means is "what today's society has, by majority, determined to be acceptable". And I'm a big fan of pushing the envelope, don't get me wrong. It's just that sexuality is one of the most potent elements of human behavior and it underlies nearlly the whole fabric of adult human interaction, excepting perhaps the elderly, and so we must look very carefully at how we model sexuality because it can invade every nook and cranny of society.

I'm not in favor, BTW, of descriminating against gays and sexual deviants of all types as long as their behavior doesn't include trying to predate youngsters or "sway" them to their slant on sexuality. Why did I choose the word "deviants" to describe anything other than sex between men and women? Because sex evolved millions and millions of years ago to beget children via a mechanism that relies on male and female DNA allowing for diversity and the ability to evolve and adapt faster than asexual reproduction. So for mammals, hetero is normal sexual behavior and anything else is not. Using the sexual reproductive organs for anything else and trying to call it "normal" would be like trying to walk on your hands and write with your feet. Sure, we could learn to accept people who did that habitually, by choice at the onset, but we couldn't call it normal.

So, did Californians make a mistake upholding what they consider to be a "normal" marriage arrangement to model before impressionable youth? I say they did not. Marriage and the implied "sex for begetting children" should be only an arrangement between two beings where at least in theory that begetting is possible. I know some couples are sterile etc. etc. etc. The important thing is that it conform with the male/female partnership as a modeling example so other fertile young people model themselves along those lines.