California Proposition 8

[Mare Tranquillity]

I really don't have to read the whole thing to realize it's questionable nature.

Like I said before, if you take what the word adelphopoiesis means, it refers to adoption, not a physical union. Without that referring to homosexual unions, his whole theory falls apart.

Further, again, if we go into the twilight zone, and pretend it is about homosexuality, he has a grand total of 16 specific examples.... 16 in the entire Greek orthodox church. 16? That's it? That's the wide spread validation of homosexual unions in the entire greek christian church on the entire planet? That's your strong support?

I can cite 16 examples of glaciers advancing. That alone should prove global warming false. Or 16 examples of temperatures dropping. That's all that is needed to prove it false. Or 16 examples of bad Chinese food. That should be enough to ban all of it.

Yes I'm being absurd to prove how absurd this book is.

I can hear the twilight zone theme in the back ground now. No, that is weak and lame. Feel free to do some research on your own. For me the case is closed, and he's been overruled.

You don't want to know, don't read the book.

 

[Andy]

You don't want to know, don't read the book.

The book is wrong. Why learn something that is clearly false? Besides, I already read some chunks of it. When you smell bs, why continue?

But thanks for your permission to dismiss clearly wrong information. You have my permission to do the same.

 

[Chip]

Anyone who has looked at what marriage has been down through history will know that the variety is extremely wide--including homosexual and group marriages. It's good to note that nothing in the marriage ceremony or in law states that procreation is a requirement. Marriage in our culture is about love and committment. People used the same arguments against women having equal rights since women were (obviously) not men, the same was used against interracial marriage, inter-faith marriage, and plural marriage. All of those arguments did not prevail then and they won't prevail now because they are irrelevant. Gay marriages in other countries and in one American state have done no damage to the institution of marriage just as the marriage of gay people during the first 14 centuries of Christianity did no damage.

Indeed, definitions do change over time, usually as new relevant knowledge is validated to be accurate.

Nevertheless, some restrictions are simply irrelevant to the definition.

For example, the time-honored definition of marriage is between a man and a woman as husband and wife.

Race definitively matters not, yet real bias may have inapproprately restricted marriage racially in the past. Likewise, inter-cultural/national/tribal "taboos" may also have restricted marriage, even though the prospective participants, a man and a woman desiring to unite as husband and wife, fit the required definition for marriage. We would argue that these definitively inappropriate restrictions were based on bias.

It is important in our more rational, enlightened here-and-now that we not impose such restrictions that are definitively inappropriate. Such irrational restrictions are forms of right-wing extremism that does not reflect accurately with respect to the defined subject matter.

On the other hand, it is also important that we do not equally error with left-wing extremism via irrational inclusion that is definitively inappropriate. Thus gay/lesbian marriage is definitively unacceptable. So is polygamy, by time-honored and still-respected definition.

It is thus vitally important with respect to neuropsychological evolution in the name of rational common sense that we remain centered with the historic and modern vast majority definitively and therefore respect the minimum qualification for marriage being between a man and a woman as husband and wife.

That some places now and in the past have behaved infrequently inappropriately erroneously extreme, either left-wing erroneously extreme or right-wing erroneously extreme, with respect to the definition of marriage, does not excuse that definitive wrong-doing nor in any way justify a definition revision.

Brother and sister, mother and son, man and woman first cousins, etc. are often legally restricted from marrying, even though when both are adults they may meet the first part of "a man and a woman" in the definition of marriage. Maybe the jury is still out definitively on this matter. Maybe the definition of marriage needs to be supplemented with "a non-blood related man and woman" reflecting new relevant knowledge to be validly accurate. Regardless, procreation may or may not be a requirement for marriage, but a man and a woman as husband and wife is.

And so it is quite clear that two men, two women, two children, an adult and a child, an adult and an animal, and the like, are obvious extremes that far exceed rational inclusion in the definition of marriage.

Though topically irrelevant, removal of bias against women with regard to voting and such is an example of progress, as I doubt (if I recall correctly) the Constitution ever restricted women from voting or possessing any other realities of rights.

Whether erroneously inappropriate marriages have "done damage to the institution of marriage" is irrelevent. What matters is that errors were made and those errors need to be corrected or the definition of marriage re-defined.

As to marriage in our culture being about love and commitment, yes, a man and a woman as husband and wife would indeed do well to love and be committed to each other, but such is not in any way the definitivelyminimal requirement for marriage, even though such may be implied in the phrase "as husband and wife".

 

[Sihouette]

Unless folks here are willing to argue that DNA is not the vehicle for inheritance and therefore the source of inheritable traits, my argument is still valid.

Given 1: From just one example of identical twins, who share the same DNA, the same vehicle for inheriting the theoretical blueprint for "inherited sexual preference", and each of them went different directions:

Conclusion 1: Gayness is not wholly an inherited and immutable trait. Environment does play a part.

Given 2: We do not fully understand that environmental influence.

Given 3: Humans learn socially

Given 1 + Given 2 + Given 3 = Conclusion: we must not promote a social environment where we aren't sure of the primate-human-social-learning ramifications of something we do not fully understand.


Feel free to argue each element separately and I will rebut.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Unless folks here are willing to argue that DNA is not the vehicle for inheritance and therefore the source of inheritable traits, my argument is still valid.

Given 1: From just one example of identical twins, who share the same DNA, the same vehicle for inheriting the theoretical blueprint for "inherited sexual preference", and each of them went different directions:

Conclusion 1: Gayness is not wholly an inherited and immutable trait. Environment does play a part.

Given 2: We do not fully understand that environmental influence.

Given 3: Humans learn socially

Given 1 + Given 2 + Given 3 = Conclusion: we must not promote a social environment where we aren't sure of the primate-human-social-learning ramifications of something we do not fully understand.


Feel free to argue each element separately and I will rebut.

You are arguing sematics not biology. Watch the presentation by Dr. Chappell.

 

[Chip]

There appears to be talk here that the etiological nature of homosexuality is germane to an appropriate ruling by the California Supreme Court, that if homosexuality is genetic rather than learned that the therefore more cast-in-cemet nature of it supposedly makes the exclusion of homosexuals from marriage a "great bias" that would be somehow less existent if homosexuality was learned.

But the etiological nature of homosexuality is irrelevant.

The definition of marriage and the situational applicability of that definition is the sole relevance.

Homosexuals are free to form non-marital domestic partnerships.

But the definition of marriage, being a domestic partnership which is between a man and a woman as husband and wife, must therefore exclude homosexuals, and rightly so.

What matters is the definition, not the sexual etiology.

We can argue forever the differences between a cat and a dog and at what stage in gestational development they manifest, but that doesn't in any way excuse allowing a cat into a dog show.

But in time humanity will come to realize that dysfunction in families sometimes fits a repetitive pattern that can alter the brain's sexuality during the first four years of post-natal life while the brain is still forming.

When we progress to the degree that such dysfunction is diminished, this topic will go away.

 

[Sihouette]

Mare,
Let's look at your choice of words to rebut the logical progression I was using:

"Semantics" "the meaning, or an interpretation of the meaning, of a word, sign, sentence, etc.: Let's not argue about semantics."
Source: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/semantics

Are you debating the meaning of the word "environmental?" "DNA"? "Given"?...etc....which one?

If I had to venture a guess, you have no rebuttal to the following and are using a sideline argument about word interpretation to cover the fact that you don't have a solid rebuttal..

Unless folks here are willing to argue that DNA is not the vehicle for inheritance and therefore the source of inheritable traits, my argument is still valid.

Given 1: From just one example of identical twins, who share the same DNA, the same vehicle for inheriting the theoretical blueprint for "inherited sexual preference", and each of them went different directions:

Conclusion 1: Gayness is not wholly an inherited and immutable trait. Environment does play a part.

Given 2: We do not fully understand that environmental influence.

Given 3: Humans learn socially

Given 1 + Given 2 + Given 3 = Conclusion: we must not promote a social environment where we aren't sure of the primate-human-social-learning ramifications of something we do not fully understand.

 

[Sihouette]

But the definition of marriage, being a domestic partnership which is between a man and a woman as husband and wife, must therefore exclude homosexuals, and rightly so.~Chip

Agreed.

What matters is the definition, not the sexual etiology.

No, sexual etiology does matter in that we (particulary impressionable youngsters and adolescents) learn socially. It is because we learn socially that augments the solidity of your first assertion: that we recognize marriage as being a domestic partnership which is only between a man and a woman.

Marriage is an implied statement about sex and how society views the sexual relationship between adults. The word "marriage" for the purposes of my argument is synonymous with "legitimate". In other words we, as a society, say we recognize only those sexual unions between a man and a woman as "legitimate". In doing so we impart to our junior members that any sexual union outside the "legitimate" one is, therefore, illegitimate. Not illegal, but illegitimate, or "not condoned by the majority of society".

And we do this because of the nature of the immersion of sexuality in marriage. Marriage is the quintessential assumption that "these two people are having sex together". If we allow same gender or any other deviant variation on sex to become condoned, we are opening pandora's box to what will, after the homosexual deviance is legitimized and sets a legal precident based on being "in love" as defining "which two entities may unite in marriage", be condoned by society, and therefore emulated by our youth and subsequent generations.

What makes the homosexual plea for legitmacy in marriage especially pernicious is that many vocal homosexuals for the "rights" of marriage also are the same people who will giggle in private about recruiting youth into their slant with the "Twinkie" phenomenon etc. ie: they know full well in private therefore (google "Twinkie") that homosexuality is environmental, learned and permanent once fixated in the adolescent or pre-adolescent mind and do in fact seek to recruit more members of lesbians and gays than otherwise would statistically occur from the general (youth) populace. And trying to legitimize their deviant sexual unions is just trying to further this recruitment.

I know there are exceptions to the perverts who stalk youth. But my encounters and familiarity with homosexuals in an area seething with their ranks (now I'm giving away my locale.. ), has shown that the majority of homosexuals consider recruitment of heteros, both young and older, as one of the paramount "sports" they engage in. It's like a challenge and fuel for bragging rights "I turned so and so gay " or "Bi". Yes, I've heard those exact words to cheers of admiring gay/lesbian pals...

Hence my problem with legitimizing gay marriage. The gays themselves are working a sham. They know it's environmental.

They also have a word they use in their recruitment drives. "Bi-curious" eh? Yeah, you've heard that one. In my area they regularly have events for "gays, lesbians, bisexuals and bi-curious". That word is a loaded word...speaking of semantics. Of course our youth are bi-curious. We are all malleable before our preference is set in stone...that is the environmental argument, after all. The message: "come on in and we'll entice you from bi-curious to bi. And they know that with impressionable youth bisexuality is the gateway drug to ultimate homosexuality...and it's my impression that this is their goal.

You can't throw a stick in my town without hitting a homosexual. You have to really hang out with a lot of homosexuals on a day to day basis to get how they really think, again, with exceptions. They as a group seem determined to increase their ranks from statistical 'norms' to much greater numbers.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Mare,
Let's look at your choice of words to rebut the logical progression I was using:

"Semantics" "the meaning, or an interpretation of the meaning, of a word, sign, sentence, etc.: Let's not argue about semantics."
Source: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/semantics

Are you debating the meaning of the word "environmental?" "DNA"? "Given"?...etc....which one?

If I had to venture a guess, you have no rebuttal to the following and are using a sideline argument about word interpretation to cover the fact that you don't have a solid rebuttal..

Wouldn't it be nice if everything was easy? If queees were just bad people and condemned by God and we didn't have to think? You said you majored in biology, isn't that right? So far you haven't shown any knowledge of biology beyond the high school level, that's one of the reasons that I suggested Dr. Chappell's presentation. She does a good job of explaining the science at the layman level.

Harking back to a post you made about twin girls and child recruiting homosexuals (the "Twinkie" post), I think you have had, or think you've had, some bad experiences with people you identify as being homosexual (I've not met them so I won't pass judgment) and you have extrapolated your experiences to all homosexual people. You posts suggest that you are comfortable with your position and the truth doesn't matter. The truth being that homosexual people are as diverse as any other group and pigeon-holing them as you have done is just as ridiculous as saying that all blacks are lazy and all Mexicans steal. The truth is always more complex, but bigots cannot or will not encompass that fact.

Learning is always dangerous because it can require one to change one's opinions or actions, ignorance is static and thus more comfortable.

 

[Sihouette]

Maybe you're right. Maybe the scores of gay people I've known and met might just be coicindentally of some sort of regional mindset?

I'm open to that possiblity. In that case, in this region, gay marriage shouldn't be allowed for all the reasons I've stated in my previous posts.

 

[Andy]

Wouldn't it be nice if everything was easy? If queees were just bad people and condemned by God and we didn't have to think? You said you majored in biology, isn't that right? So far you haven't shown any knowledge of biology beyond the high school level, that's one of the reasons that I suggested Dr. Chappell's presentation. She does a good job of explaining the science at the layman level.

Harking back to a post you made about twin girls and child recruiting homosexuals (the "Twinkie" post), I think you have had, or think you've had, some bad experiences with people you identify as being homosexual (I've not met them so I won't pass judgment) and you have extrapolated your experiences to all homosexual people. You posts suggest that you are comfortable with your position and the truth doesn't matter. The truth being that homosexual people are as diverse as any other group and pigeon-holing them as you have done is just as ridiculous as saying that all blacks are lazy and all Mexicans steal. The truth is always more complex, but bigots cannot or will not encompass that fact.

Learning is always dangerous because it can require one to change one's opinions or actions, ignorance is static and thus more comfortable.

This entire post was very arrogant. You mockingly assume that everyone else is simply bigoted because they didn't reach the conclusions you reached, without actually debating anything said.

Finely you confirmed your arrogant position by saying that "learning can be dangerous because it requires one to change, and ignorance is static." Well I would agree, and you need to do a great amount of learning.

If you do not intend to actually debate the topic, spare us the prideful strutting around. You may impress those equally ignorant, but it does nothing for any of us.

 

[rushhannity]

You either believe what the bible says about Homosexuality which I do,
Or try to explain some kind of science behind it. But remember science
is complete human opinion.

 

[Sihouette]

Thanks Andy. We don't always agree, but at least you nailed "Mare" on her/his arrogance.

That being said, I am simply using logic to get to the bottom of the gay marriage issue. That's why I presented the "Givens" and the "Conclusion" above. We have to weigh things logically, else we'll come back later and find a mistake we made that may not be able to be so easily undone.

Religion is fine, if you come to your beliefs as a result of weighing the edicts of that religion on your "logicometer". I think bringing religion into this discussion may actually be a clever device of a homosexual hellbent on swaying the topic away from the powerful tool of logic and towards the flimsy and defeatable platform of [implied] "I hate fags because the Bible says to."

Just a hunch?

 

[Chip]

Thanks Andy. We don't always agree, but at least you nailed "Mare" on her/his arrogance.

I don't find Mare arrogant at all.

The degree to which we feel confident can reflect in our posts.

And we all can become frustrated at times with differing opinion.

I, for one, can become frustrated when I realize the need for change is dire with respect to the survival of the human race, and when some express a differing opinion I can become frightened and it may have an effect on my posts.

That doesn't mean I'm arrogant.

It simply means I'm understandably frustrated.

 

[Andy]

I don't find Mare arrogant at all.

The degree to which we feel confident can reflect in our posts.

And we all can become frustrated at times with differing opinion.

I, for one, can become frustrated when I realize the need for change is dire with respect to the survival of the human race, and when some express a differing opinion I can become frightened and it may have an effect on my posts.

That doesn't mean I'm arrogant.

It simply means I'm understandably frustrated.

No, that was a very arrogant post. When you ASSUME that the only reason the other person is taking the position they are taking, is because of bigotry... you yourself are being a bigot.

Look at the end of his post, claiming that learning is dangerous because it requires us to change our views, and that ignorance is comfortable...

Realize that what he's saying is "I have it figured out. I learned. I know everything, and you don't yet, which is why you have a different view".

He is essentially saying that obviously we must not know anything to base our views on, because if we did, we'd obviously come to the same conclusion as our so brilliantly smart, and well informed Mare has.

Arrogant to the max.

Btw, Sihouette, it's true I've teased you about some things you've supported, and clearly we disagree about much. But I've always respected how you are at least completely honest with what you believe. Something sorely lacking among way too many.