Is homosexuality a choice or is it genetic?

[Coyote]

The equal protection clause is there. It covers practically everything under the sun. You aren't asking for equal protection of rights for homosexuals however, you are asking for special rights based on sexual preference. Sexual preference isn't a rational reason to give special rights.

If sexual preference is genetic then what makes it different then skin color? How is it that granting marriage rights to homosexual couples an example of "special rights" but granting marriage rights to interracial couples not? Why is it not equal protection? Neither example have any control over their genetic heritage and unlike examples of hardwired criminal behavior they do not injure society or other people.

I don't have a problem with homosexuals. I believe that they are the way they are due to genetics because true homosexuality exists among humans at about the same rate that homosexuality expresses itself among social animals (canines, felines, simians etc.). Genetics is also not a valid reason to grant special rights.

But skin color is determined by genetics. What makes one valid and the other not?

No one has the "right" to marry a consenting partner of their choice today. I can not marry a man even if some situation should arise that would make such an arrangement very advantageous to me. I wouldn't be interested in sex, but can imagine senarios where there might be a tremendous financial advantage to be had by an arrangement like marriage that is sanctioned by the state.

Heterosexuals have a right to marry a heterosexual partner of their choice. Why should not homosexuals have the right to marry the homosexual partner of their choice? If it is not a "right" then the way the laws are set are clearly discrimminatory.

The institution arose for very specific anthropological reasons that you simply aren't going to be able to argue your way around. No one dreamed up marriage between men and women, it evolved and it evolved for particular reasons that have nothing to do with homosexuals.

Likewise the institution of marriage has not always been one woman/one man. It has changed according to culture and local morals. Each version has been righteous, valid and legal. Why can it not be changed yet again? What good reason is there to grant special rights to heterosexual couples who marry and deny them to other couples? It can't be because of children because that would rule out childless couples.

Those issues can be addressed by a good lawyer in the form of a contract between the parties that offer far more protection to each than a marriage licence and an "I do" before a preacher or justice of the peace. The only thing that a homosexual couple can't get that heterosexual couples do get is the marriage tax on their income.

Personally, I have no problem with a solution that is a civil contract of equal legal validity and weight. However I am not so sure that these contracts you mention are as strong legally especially where custody, inheritance and adoption are concerned. Segep could probably better answer that then I.

I asked you where you would draw the line. If you are going to grant special rights based on sexual preference for one group, how do you rationally deny the next.

And the slippery slope isn't necessarily a fallacy. When the court in Mass decreed that homosexuals could marry, a series of suits were filed on behalf of polygamists. You can't rationally call it a fallacy if action has already been taken that demonstrates the reality.

The slippery slope can be a fallacy: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/slippery-slope.html

For example the cry I most often hear is will they then allow people to marry animals or children?

Rationally - do you honestly think our society would ever allow that? No. I don't. That is why I say it is a slippery slope fallacy. After all, the same argument could have been made concerning interracial marriages and believe me - the people who argued against it were just as rightious and sure of their truth that the world as we know it would come to an end. Did it? No.

Where would I draw the line? My feeling is that marriage is a contract between consenting adult humans not closely related.

On the question of bigomy, I can't argue logically against it. The only thing that made it illegal in the US was the religious values of a majority. But think about it - is there a rational reason against it? I can't think of any except in the cases of forced marriages and child marriages but those can occur in any marriage.

And no, I am not arguing in support of bigomy nor would it be the choice for myself. I just can't think of a good argument against it.

Once again, if you are going to grant special rights based on sexual preference, where would you draw the line and what rational reason would you give for where you would draw the line?

Always between a man or men and a woman or women. You are asking for special rights based on sexual preference. Where do you draw the line and what rational explanation do you give the next group who also wants special rights based on some preference whether it is sexual or something else?

 

[palerider]

Where would I draw the line? My feeling is that marriage is a contract between consenting adult humans not closely related.

I don't have time right now to get to your whole post, but you keep adding this "closely related" caveat. Why is that?

I will get to the rest later.

 

[invest07]

Human sexuality vs animals

Palerider,
You compared human homosexual behavior with animals. In my humble opinion this is like comparing apples to watermelons.

Animal sexual behavior is triggered by the female's fertility cycle. Until the female is fertile, the male has no sexual interest in the female. If a dog humps your leg, this is a reaction to a fertile female somewhere within the dog's range of scent and is not a homosexual act. Certain simians engage in playful intragender contact with sex organs. My guess is this is play only and has no sexual aspect at all.

Most homosexual behavior in humans involves some form of simulated male/female intercourse. I have never heard or read any report of any animal engaging in similar behavior.

Human sexual behavior is triggered by the desire for pleasure. It is not triggered by the female fertility cycle.

Clearly sexuality in humans was designed differently from animals. Sexual behavior in animals is designed solely for procreation. Human sexuality has the proceation aspect as well as the desire for pleasure.

I don't think any comparison of animal and human sexual behavior is valid.

 

[Coyote]

I don't have time right now to get to your whole post, but you keep adding this "closely related" caveat. Why is that?

I will get to the rest later.

I do not think it is healthy for a brother and sister to marry.

 

[Coyote]

Palerider,
You compared human homosexual behavior with animals. In my humble opinion this is like comparing apples to watermelons.

Animal sexual behavior is triggered by the female's fertility cycle. Until the female is fertile, the male has no sexual interest in the female. If a dog humps your leg, this is a reaction to a fertile female somewhere within the dog's range of scent. Certain simians engage in playful intragender contact with sex organs. My guess is this is play only and has no sexual aspect at all.

That is not true. Among many social animals - sexual behavior is more complicated. Sex is triggered by fertility cycles. Sexual behavior is triggered by many things and homosexual behavior occurs among animals even (rarely) homosexual bonding in some species at about the rate that it seems to occur in humans.

With dogs - sexual behavior is often a form of ritualized social behavior and does not necessarily occur in the presence of a female in heat.

Most homosexual behavior in humans involves some form of simulated male/female intercourse. It is my understanding that no animals engage in any such behavior.

Mutual masterbation occurs in some species (for example dolphins).

Human sexual behavior is triggered by the desire for pleasure. It is not triggered by the female fertility cycle.

Don't diminish the role of hormones and pheromones in this.

Clearly sexuality in humans was designed differently from animals. Sexual behavior in animals is designed solely for procreation. Human sexuality has the proceation aspect as well as the desire for pleasure.

I don't think any comparison of animal and human sexual behavior is valid.

It is valid.

 

[palerider]

Palerider,
You compared human homosexual behavior with animals. In my humble opinion this is like comparing apples to watermelons.

Animal sexual behavior is triggered by the female's fertility cycle. Until the female is fertile, the male has no sexual interest in the female. If a dog humps your leg, this is a reaction to a fertile female somewhere within the dog's range of scent and is not a homosexual act. Certain simians engage in playful intragender contact with sex organs. My guess is this is play only and has no sexual aspect at all.

Actually, that isn't entirely true. Humans have what is known as a hidden cycle. It is thought that this evolved because the males of the species would never be sure whether or not his female was in season and because of this uncertainty, nothing would be gained by leaving his female unguarded to go in search of others. There are other animals that have this hidden cycle besides human beings.

Most homosexual behavior in humans involves some form of simulated male/female intercourse. I have never heard or read any report of any animal engaging in similar behavior.

You have not done adequate research then. I did a research paper while I was in college and had no less than 10 pages of bibliographical references.

Human sexual behavior is triggered by the desire for pleasure. It is not triggered by the female fertility cycle.

None the less, true homosexual behavior is exhibited among social animals at almost precicely the same rate as true homosexuality exists in human beings.

Clearly sexuality in humans was designed differently from animals. Sexual behavior in animals is designed solely for procreation. Human sexuality has the proceation aspect as well as the desire for pleasure.

This is because of the female's hidden cycle, no more and no less. Because we don't get scent or sight queues as to when our females are in season, if pleasure were not a factor, we would have no motivation to mate. The release of endorphins upon orgasm in us is the biological equivalent of smelling a female in heat in most animals. That endorphin release is nature's way of making sure that we continue the species.

By the way, in the animals that also have hidden cycles, they have sex when the females are not in heat and endorpin releases are part of their sexual activity.

 

[palerider]

I do not think it is healthy for a brother and sister to marry.

Elaborate.

 

[Coyote]

Elaborate.

If children should ensue from that marriage the possibility of genetic abnormalities is greatly increased.

 

[Coyote]

er...those quotes by me in your post above aren't by me...

 

[palerider]

If sexual preference is genetic then what makes it different then skin color? How is it that granting marriage rights to homosexual couples an example of "special rights" but granting marriage rights to interracial couples not? Why is it not equal protection? Neither example have any control over their genetic heritage and unlike examples of hardwired criminal behavior they do not injure society or other people.

Couples? Meaning men and women? Allowing men and women to marry is not a special right.

Heterosexuals have a right to marry a heterosexual partner of their choice. Why should not homosexuals have the right to marry the homosexual partner of their choice? If it is not a "right" then the way the laws are set are clearly discrimminatory.

No they don't. I can't marry a heterosexual man even if there is potentially great advantage to be gained by it by one or both of us.

Likewise the institution of marriage has not always been one woman/one man. It has changed according to culture and local morals. Each version has been righteous, valid and legal. Why can it not be changed yet again? What good reason is there to grant special rights to heterosexual couples who marry and deny them to other couples? It can't be because of children because that would rule out childless couples.

Man and woman, man and women, men and woman, men and women. Do you see a pattern there? I asked if you could point out a culture based on homosexual marriage or even a culture where it was supported and nurtured by the society.

You are asking for special rights based on sexual preference. Sexual preference isn't a rational basis upon which to grant special rights.

Personally, I have no problem with a solution that is a civil contract of equal legal validity and weight. However I am not so sure that these contracts you mention are as strong legally especially where custody, inheritance and adoption are concerned. Segep could probably better answer that then I.

Neither do I but then this issue really isn't about marriage and legal protections so much as it is about altering societal norms which is not a valid reason to grant special rights.

The slippery slope can be a fallacy: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/slippery-slope.html

The FACT that suits were filed on behalf of polygamists after the Mass supreme court ruled on homosexual marriage invalidates that argument. It isn't a slippery slope theory, it is a slippery slope fact.

On the question of bigomy, I can't argue logically against it. The only thing that made it illegal in the US was the religious values of a majority. But think about it - is there a rational reason against it? I can't think of any except in the cases of forced marriages and child marriages but those can occur in any marriage.

I can see all sorts of societal problems arising from it. One of the problems with social liberalisim is that it leads people to want what they want even when what they want is leading to a very predictable failure.

 

[TVoffBrainOn]

Im still waiting for Palerider to address this.

If sexual preference is genetic then what makes it different then skin color? How is it that granting marriage rights to homosexual couples an example of "special rights" but granting marriage rights to interracial couples not? Why is it not equal protection? Neither example have any control over their genetic heritage and unlike examples of hardwired criminal behavior they do not injure society or other people.

But skin color is determined by genetics. What makes one valid and the other not?

Heterosexuals have a right to marry a heterosexual partner of their choice. Why should not homosexuals have the right to marry the homosexual partner of their choice? If it is not a "right" then the way the laws are set are clearly discrimminatory.

Palerider, without the anthropological history of male/female relations and marriage, would you have any argument whatsoever against the right for consenting adults to marry other consenting adults?

Your definition of marriage is what puts homosexual marriage into the so called "special rights" category. is it not? If you had no historical and/or anthropological referrence point from which to draw your definition of marriage, then their would be no way to classify homosexuality as a sexual preference any different than heterosexuality.

I guess i just dont see homosexuallity as a sexual preference that is any different from the sexual preference of heterosexuality.

EDIT: good timing
EDIT: You did not address Coyote's first paragraph at all. you dodged it. If Homosexuality is genetic, then what makes it different than skin color.

 

[palerider]

Im still waiting for Palerider to address this.

Allowing men and women to marry is not granting any special right. The law ended a descrimination base on nothing more than race. No special right was granted. I would have thought that it was obvious.

Palerider, without the anthropological history of male/female relations and marriage, would you have any argument whatsoever against the right for consenting adults to marry other consenting adults?

You mean without the entire history of humanity?

Your definition of marriage is what puts homosexual marriage into the so called "special rights" category. is it not? If you had no historical and/or anthropological referrence point from which to draw your definition of marriage, then their would be no way to classify homosexuality as a sexual preference any different than heterosexuality.

Marriage is what marriage is. Redefining words and granting special rights based on sexual preference is simply not rational. All of the benefits of marriage can be achieved for homosexual couples via a good lawyer.

I guess i just dont see homosexuallity as a sexual preference that is any different from the sexual preference of heterosexuality.

Sexual preference is sexual preference whether it is homosexual or heterosexual. Sexual preference, however, is not the basis upon which the institution of marriage evolved. I have no problem at all with civil unions but redefining an institution that has been an intergal part of every culture since we walked out of the jungle on the basis of sexual preference is simply not rational.

 

[palerider]

If children should ensue from that marriage the possibility of genetic abnormalities is greatly increased.

I can name a half a dozen heredetary genetic defects that unrelated couples could pass on to children that are far more serious than the genetic risks of inbreeding. Are you prepared to genetically screen each couple and deny them the right to marry based on possible genetic issues?

 

[palerider]

er...those quotes by me in your post above aren't by me...

Sorry. My mistake.

 

[TVoffBrainOn]

Allowing men and women to marry is not granting any special right.

...Because Marriage is defined by history as between a man and a woman right?...Even though it wasnt until 1995-96 that the Defense of Marriage Act was passed to define marriage in the US. Since we are a nation of laws, wouldn't the DOMA be granting special rights to heterosexuals then? Since by law it was creating a special right to marriage for heterosexuals only.

The law ended a descrimination base on nothing more than race.

Race is genetics, and we agree that homosexuality is genetics. so the Defense of Marriage Act is discrimination.