gay marriage

[scintillio]

Dammie-kins

it isnt exactly that gay marrage is bad but its more of the fact that it bothers people because they are afraid the "Queers" will go after them or they feel challenged....

Personally Im for it as long as im not the one getting married if im drunk

>.>
<.<

*laughs* challenged~ but maybe so! i understand where your coming from; but the last sentence is just funny~ xd  

[Alchemist of the Twilight]

Bellabie

Alchemist of the Twilight

I think that it's alright, because really, most people don't really decide whether they are gay or lesbian. Not being one, I do not know, but in my mind, it's more like, they're born that way and can't control it. You can't control emotions.
I'm not getting into the religious stuff, because I'm not too big a religious person.
I could get a lot more into, but as of now I am too lazy.

Feel free to write however much you feel is necessary.
(the term "lesbo" may be offensive, I do not know, so please use it carefully)
I agree with you, in that, emotion has not, usually, a thing to do with what someone wishes. It is, as you say, out of their control.
b

(That's true, sorry. I changed it. I usually type how I would talk)  

[Fuku Taichou]

I'm pro-gay rights. I'd feel horrible if someone told me I couldn't marry someone just because they felt it was "wrong." It's like forcing me to marry someone of the same ethnicity even if I might not be interested in someone of the same ethnicity. It's hard to explain, really, but I don't see how gay marriage would hurt heterosexuals, and therefore don't see why gay people shouldn't have the right to get married if they so choose.  

[Bellabie]

Czar Liece

i knew a guy at my high school who was gay, and his brother, his older brother, was also gay.
this could be infact genetic---or, the simple fact that the younger brother grew up very close to the elder and simply chose to become gay.

Ah, classic.
Nature vs. Nurture!
I understand what you say, but (from my standpoint, anyhow) I do not think that consciousness requires a control. I may be conscious of the fact that I am an alcoholic, but that doesn't mean that I can control it. (No, I am not alcoholic, though I may become so as it seems to run in my family.)
Your example is of an inherited trait. Most mutations are not inherited codes, but rather "random" changes in the genome. (I put quotes around random because there are environmental factors as well as the ideas of those who follow the "theory" of intelligent design.) (I put quotes around the word theory because I do not know if it is, in fact, a theory.)
I fully understand if you cannot accept this explanation because your beliefs do not agree with genetic mutation. (No quotes because it has been witnessed and studied. The influences of mutation are, however, debatable)

Also, (sorry to be such a bother. I really don't mean to be rude or controlling...) would you mind not quoting entire posts? It sort of discourages readers from, well, reading. I only say this because Kilikrox had noted that the large posts were frightening.

Dear Alchemist of the Twilight, I also don't mean to attack you or be commanding. I merely hope that no offensive language or any such are used, and because I don't know all terms, I just wanted to prevent the risk of offense.
heart
b  

[scintillio]

Bellabie

Czar Liece

i knew a guy at my high school who was gay, and his brother, his older brother, was also gay.
this could be infact genetic---or, the simple fact that the younger brother grew up very close to the elder and simply chose to become gay.

Ah, classic.
Nature vs. Nurture!
I understand what you say, but (from my standpoint, anyhow) I do not think that consciousness requires a control. I may be conscious of the fact that I am an alcoholic, but that doesn't mean that I can control it. (No, I am not alcoholic, though I may become so as it seems to run in my family.)
Your example is of an inherited trait. Most mutations are not inherited codes, but rather "random" changes in the genome. (I put quotes around random because there are environmental factors as well as the ideas of those who follow the "theory" of intelligent design.) (I put quotes around the word theory because I do not know if it is, in fact, a theory.)
I fully understand if you cannot accept this explanation because your beliefs do not agree with genetic mutation. (No quotes because it has been witnessed and studied. The influences of mutation are, however, debatable)

Also, (sorry to be such a bother. I really don't mean to be rude or controlling...) would you mind not quoting entire posts? It sort of discourages readers from, well, reading. I only say this because Kilikrox had noted that the large posts were frightening.

Dear Alchemist of the Twilight, I also don't mean to attack you or be commanding. I merely hope that no offensive language or any such are used, and because I don't know all terms, I just wanted to prevent the risk of offense.
heart
b

Ah, yep---i understand you *nods* yes, you can be conscientious, but cannot contoll it----but is homosexuality something of this sort? ninja

and i do agree with mutations---they happen in nature all the time, so i accept this. :3 and i understand it 3nodding
Alright,
i'll quote the posts. >,< although it shouldn't stop people from reading, since im just copy and pasting. and my words are at the bottom, but whatever. I'll quote from here on.. ninja  

[Anochaa]

As far as the genetic vs. nurture debate, it's not really either. Some of the latest research as to what causes homosexuality has supported the thesis of hormonal abnormalities during fetal development that actually results in visible, physical differences in several areas of the brain and several hormone glands. This study included biopsies of deceased gay and straight individuals of both sexes as well as several living brain images from MRI's and the like.

In short, the gay individuals' brains more greatly resembled those of the opposite sex than their own. Such physical differences cannot be caused by a "choice" but are instead believed to be a result of the aforementioned hormonal imbalances during early development. It also forms a more concrete counterargument for the idea of homosexuality being a choice. The only choice that such people have to make is whether or not to act on their feelings; however, it is an unjust and unreasonable request to have them withhold natural urges simply because they differ from the norms of society.

Additionally, I think that it's silly not to allow gay marriage as it is doing nothing more than discriminating people against legal rights that should be theirs. Marriage offers huge financial benefits and it is wrong to exclude people from such things simply based on their sexual orientation. Also, although the majority of the country holds Christian views, that does not mean that all people are of the same religious standing by any means and many cultures/religions have no problem with homosexuality. So, this again is a bit unreasonable to force everyone to conform to one view simply because the majority of people in power are white, straight, Christian males.


NOTE: I can provide the reference for the study mentioned above in the moderately near future, but I read it in one of the books I used for neuroscience last year and I gave said book back to the person that I was borrowing it from. It is a real study though ^^; I'm not just making stuff up.  

[scintillio]

Anochaa

As far as the genetic vs. nurture debate, it's not really either. Some of the latest research as to what causes homosexuality has supported the thesis of hormonal abnormalities during fetal development that actually results in visible, physical differences in several areas of the brain and several hormone glands. This study included biopsies of deceased gay and straight individuals of both sexes as well as several living brain images from MRI's and the like.

In short, the gay individuals' brains more greatly resembled those of the opposite sex than their own. Such physical differences cannot be caused by a "choice" but are instead believed to be a result of the aforementioned hormonal imbalances during early development. It also forms a more concrete counterargument for the idea of homosexuality being a choice. The only choice that such people have to make is whether or not to act on their feelings; however, it is an unjust and unreasonable request to have them withhold natural urges simply because they differ from the norms of society.

sweatdrop that kinda does sound like a mutation...but i can see how its actually isnt. Somehow this reminds me of something fleeting i saw on a television program expressing the idea of a psycological condition about homosexuality that kinda coinsides with this...but i cannot remember where i saw it--or if i can even find it gonk

oh~! do try to find that book and quote some things~ it's interesting 3nodding  

[Anochaa]

I was here...

Hehe, well, I can't quote directly, but this is the book that it's from if you want to check it out. I read some other stuff about it afterwards, but that's where I first found out about it.
Link to Amazon.com's listing of it

...and then I was gone.

 

[scintillio]

Anochaa

I was here...

Hehe, well, I can't quote directly, but this is the book that it's from if you want to check it out. I read some other stuff about it afterwards, but that's where I first found out about it.
Link to Amazon.com's listing of it

...and then I was gone.

yay~! im learning! 4laugh

oh~! i wanted to ask you, do you think this theory accounts for all of the homosexuality in the world or just a small percentage...?  

[Anochaa]

I was here...

I think it accounts for most, if not all of it. Being gay, just like being straight, isn't a choice. It's definitely something that you are born with, regardless of your upbringing. This should be obvious just from the fact that a lot of kids with straight parents end up gay and vice versa. If that were not the case then every kid with gay parents would also be gay and every kid with straight parents would also be straight.

So, it must be controlled by something else; would you not agree?

...and then I was gone.

 

[scintillio]

Anochaa

I was here...

I think it accounts for most, if not all of it. Being gay, just like being straight, isn't a choice. It's definitely something that you are born with, regardless of your upbringing. This should be obvious just from the fact that a lot of kids with straight parents end up gay and vice versa. If that were not the case then every kid with gay parents would also be gay and every kid with straight parents would also be straight.

So, it must be controlled by something else; would you not agree?

...and then I was gone.

that does make sense! dramallama i agree~ (lol but would still love to see some numbers and percentages as well, but i do agree)  

[Bellabie]

Hm...
I disagree.
(I always try to play Devil's Advocate for the sake of further thinking...)
Although I do personally agree that not all homosexual people are in control of their orientation, I think that stating genetics as the only factor is foolish. Of course prenatal development plays a role (Brave New World, anyone?), but I don't think that you interpret correctly what I say.
Genetic mutation is not (often) inherited.

Quote:

I think it accounts for most, if not all of it. Being gay, just like being straight, isn't a choice. It's definitely something that you are born with, regardless of your upbringing. This should be obvious just from the fact that a lot of kids with straight parents end up gay and vice versa. If that were not the case then every kid with gay parents would also be gay and every kid with straight parents would also be straight.

So, it must be controlled by something else; would you not agree?

That doesn't mean a thing, I think. People, in case it hasn't been noticed, do not always mirror their parents and, in fact, often times rebel against them.
The Nature vs Nurture argument goes far deeper than just what a parent says or whether or not they are actually the biological parent. Nature and Nurture can be brought to the most minute details.
Do separated twins share their favourite jam flavour because it is in their genes or because they have lived as a separated/adopted/etcetera child?
Coincidence? Many would argue otherwise.
b  

[Anochaa]

I was here...

First off, I didn't say that it was a genetic mutation. Hormonal imbalances are different than genetic drift and therefore wouldn't pass to the next generation ever. It's possible that the tendency to cause such hormone differences could be caused by a genetic factor, but the change itself isn't believed to be genetic.

Second: Sure kids try to rebel against their parents, but as much as they hate to admit it, everyone picks up something from the people who raised them. It's impossible to avoid it. They may not be exact carbon copies of them, but they still pick up a lot of things.

And for your third point, I don't think that really makes a difference. Your tastes are largely dictated by what the mother consumed while pregnant (the nutrients provided by different foods enter the blood stream and enter the embryo, providing that embryo with an affinity for such foods. Poor pregnancy diets can increase obesity rates, for example) and because many women experience abnormal cravings during pregnancy, many children's taste's differ from that of their mother while still remaining somewhat similar. So, twins are likely to have similar "genetic" (note the quotation marks) tastes even if separated at birth, however, these tastes can be refined and slightly altered by what they are exposed to growing up.

However, that's not terribly relevant to the discussion. I think that it's a bit silly to say that you "chose" to be straight, so it's the same for gay people. As I said before, anyone can choose what feelings they act upon, but nobody can willingly control who they are physically attracted to. If people could, then there wouldn't be nearly as many abusive/unhappy relationships, gay or otherwise.

...and then I was gone.

 

[Anochaa]

I was here...

Czar Liece

(lol but would still love to see some numbers and percentages as well, but i do agree)

I don't know the exact numbers and percents off the top of my head, but from what I gathered, the vast majority of the subjects tested presented such results. Obviously, they can't examine every deceased person's brain, so it's not like they had an unlimited sample size. It was still fairly large and, like I said, the majority showed those results.

I'll try to find the exact numbers for you at some point.

...and then I was gone.

 

[Bellabie]

Do we know that?
I don't mean to be argumentative, but all of this is rather theoretical, isn't it?
I'm not saying that you wrote that homosexual preference was a mutation. I'm arguing that it is. I was merely pointing at the fact that you made a genetic explanation sound like an inherited change.
After all, much of prenatal development has to do with genetics, also.
Interesting note about misled public:

Quote:

Among the many crucial issues raised by the legislation was the question as to whether homosexuality was indeed normal, innate and unchangeable. One prominent researcher testified to the court, "I am 99.5% certain that homosexuality is genetic." But this personal opinion was widely misunderstood as "homosexuality is 99.5% genetic," implying that research had demonstrated this. Certainly, that was the message promulgated by NPR's report on the recent research, and by all the discussions that followed. In a few weeks, Newsweek would emblazon across its cover the phrase that would stick in the public mind as the final truth about homosexuality: "Gay Gene?

I should like to think that I am not one of a misled many, but I agree with the researcher's ideas... Does this make me an incorrect interpreter?
sad
b