What science says about homosexuality

[LightHorseman]

Perhaps a million things. We don't know yet despite the horrific incidence of AIDS among gay mne, people will continue to jump through hoops to present them as normal.

I suppose the fact that HIV is predominantly a heterosexual disease transmitted through heterosexual sex doesn't deter you at all, does it?

 

[b&wpac4]

No need to. Either there are standards or there are not. I advocate the standards that have supported our nation's prosperity for over 200 years and relieves me of the need of drawing arbitrary lines on who can and cannot marry with no consideration for values.

Do you support interracial marriage? That has only been around, in all states, for about 50 years.

 

[Copperpennies12]

I predict the "marriage with children" and "marriage with animals" arguments will be brought up next. I will then counter with the fact that animals and children cannot consent to marriage as they are not recognized with having the ability to agree to contracts.

It already has. And with regards to pets, they are property under the law and a people are bound under all kinds of contracts to property.

With regards to children, we simply change the law as we did with sodomy. That is, unless your argument is one of values when it comes to children.

Sometimes this descends to an odd discussion about laws being passed to allow them to consent, but, truly, that argument is grasping at straws. Were the country to get so far as to grant contract rights to a dog, the country would already have ceased to exist as the nation it is today.

Funny how this completely subjective opinion relies on a set of values which you seem to imply is not a consideration for marriage when it comes to gays.

 

[Skaloop]

I refer you back to my first post.

"If one is to examine homosexuality from a scientific perspective, shouldn't the discussion include more context. While I'm no biologist, I've had some basic biology in my education to include two college courses on biology. One thing that comes to mind is basic physiology; that is the function/purpose of organs.

If you consider the sexual reproductive organs, they are designed so that a man's organs not only complement a woman's but also has a reproductive value. The same cannot be said for the organs of two men or the organs of two women."

Other organs are not designed for sex.

Our ears are designed for channeling sound waves, but many people with "defects" use them to hold up their eyeglasses. You got a problem with that mis-use of physiological function?

There's nothing wrong with using something for other than its designed purpose.

And as you know, "reproductive value" is not necessary for marriage.

 

[Maren]

If it were a matter of merely hormones, the numbers wouldn't be so disproportionate. The first paragraph says it all.

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/msm/resources/factsheets/pdf/msm.pdf

And yet women disproportionally get genital herpes (heterosexual women, at that) and by HPV. Does this mean we shouldn't present women as "normal" since they have a greater propensity toward some STDs? I've also previously pointed out that Blacks are also disproportionately afflicted by HIV, does this mean we shouldn't present Blacks as normal? Or perhaps STDs have nothing to do with differences like gender, race, or sexual orientation; rather it has everything to do with the name -- Sexually Transmitted Disease. That it is people having unprotected sex with a person already infected (or a carrier of the disease) that we need to worry about; not about their race, gender, or sexual orientation.

 

[Copperpennies12]

How about... "homosexuals WANT to get married"?

Nope, for reasons already stated.

Isn't people's desire for something reason enough? Generally speaking, I believe you should let people do whatever they like so long as it doesn't harm anyone else. If you want to stop someone from doing something, then I believe you'd better have a darned good reason... and I see no reason to stop homosexuals getting married other than small minded habit.

Well, since you find it necessary to insult those with an opposing view as being "small minded," our debate comes to an end.

If you care to engage in a mature debate, I'll accept your apology as a sign.

 

[b&wpac4]

It already has. And with regards to pets, they are property under the law and a people are bound under all kinds of contracts to property.

Such as?

With regards to children, we simply change the law as we did with sodomy. That is,unless your argument is one of values when it comes to children.

Actually, contract law has to do with ones ability to trust the other party will hold up their end of the agreement. We do not hold that children can be held accountable, so I see no reason why this law would change.

Funny how this completely subjective opinion relies on a set of values which you seem to imply is not a consideration for marriage when it comes to gays.

Precedent of law. No court ruling has ever even come close to granting the right to sign contracts to a non-human. What would be the legal precedent to do so? Why would such a thing be allowed? An animal cannot be expected to live up to an agreement.

 

[LightHorseman]

Nope, for reasons already stated.

Sorry, I'm a late comer to the thread, what reasons? Quick bullet points would be fine.

Well, since you find it necessary to insult those with an opposing view as being "small minded," our debate comes to an end.

If you care to engage in a mature debate, I'll accept your apology as a sign.

My intent was not to offend anyone, and I apologise for hurting your feelings. I am trying to explain how I see the opposition to homosexual marriage and rights, not making a value judgement on the people who oppose them themselves, if you can see the difference.

Let me try another way... other than "its always been that way", I see no compelling reason to restrict the rights of homosexuals.

 

[Copperpennies12]

And yet, that was exactly your logic. You claimed that because gays can enter into a marriage that they have no interest in that they have equal rights. That is exactly the same logic as stating that Christians have equal rights in Iraq since they can worship Allah in a mosque like any other person. In both cases, it shows that just because the law treats everyone the same it is not equality.

I don't subscribe to Iraqi law. I subscribe to the United States Constitution and the laws derived from it. These laws are clearly based in religion (refer to previous links to the Supreme Court decision referring to the US being a Christian Nation and the link to the Library of Congress which shows the religious basis for our nation) and religious values that recognize the natural order of things. A casual examination of human physiology, shows the natural use of organs.

And gays have families too, therefore their relationships should be promoted just like straight couples. Not quite sure what you mean by the "natural physiology" buy my best guess is you mean penis/vagina. Yet in some marriages, as someone pointed out previously, a man may have had an "accident" and lost his penis, yet it does not remove his right to marry. Nor is fertility required for marriage.

If you have to presume about physiology, I suggest you do some basic research on it. It's a part of science and that is a critical element of the topic of this thread.

To repeat, I made no claim that there is a connection between gay marriage in the United States and religion in Iran, I was instead pointing out your faulty logic in stating that just because the law treats everyone the same that it is not equality.

The law does not treat minors the same as adults. Members of the military are treated differently by the law than those who are not in the military. Foreigners with diplomatic recognition are treated differently than foreigners without it and even citizens. The law makes appropriate distinctions.

Because a dog cannot legally consent or enter a contract. The same reason children below the age of consent may not marry.

Then the simple answer is to change the law as was done with sodomy and as I said in another post, animal consent is not necessary. Animals are merely property under the law and people enter into contractual agreements everyday with regards to their property.

From what I know from previous decisions, incest is in part not allowed because of the increased chances of birth defects. For example, some states will allow first cousins to marry only if they provide evidence that they are unable to have a child (man has had a vasectomy or woman has gone through menopause or had a hysterectomy, or one or both are otherwise sterile). Beyond that, much of the reasoning has to do with the mental problems it can cause, particularly since there can be some coercion (mental or otherwise) in these types of relationships.

But what happened to equality? That was the basis of your argument above. We do not stop any other couple from marrying though the may have inheritable conditions that could or would lead to birth defects. Additionally, by your logic, marriage isn't necessarily about sex or reproduction.

My position is completely consistent yet your position contradicts itself.

If that is the reason, it is too late. Homosexuality is already legal -- as such it already has governmental recognition.

Tell that to gays in California.

Again, you need to explain what you mean by "physiology".

I'm sorry but that is some basic science that you need to educate yourself on.

As for the "values" this country was founded on, while I agree that there was a Christian majority, they purposely did not create a nation founded on Christianity. Rather, they founded a nation on "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness". The constitution specifically states that all citizens should be treated equally under the law. Not to mention, there are Christians that believe God recognizes gay marriages.

If you believe that I suggest you read a little more about the founding fathers because they have said things completely contrary to what you just said and they also practiced government in a way contary to your assertion. Additionally, refer to my links in this thread that refute that assertion.

Red herring. The teaching of "homosexuality" that is so objected to (such as the book the Parker's objected to in Massachusetts) merely point out that some couples are made up of two people of the same sex. That is fact, gay couples exist (and raise children together) regardless if same sex marriage is legal or not. All these schools are doing is teaching that some children have a mother and a father, some families have only a mother or father, some have a mommy and daddy lives in another place with the new mommy, some have two mommies, etc. Even if you don't teach this, the kids will still find out -- not to mention that children with "different" families may get picked on (and in some school districts, such as those with high divorce rates, it may well be the children with both a mother and daddy that get picked on).

I don't care about a specific group of kids getting picked on. Kids are cruel and get picked on for a multitude of reasons. We need to teach tolerance for all not specific groups.

Are you telling me this book presents relationships appropriately?
Children's book "King and King"

Additionally, there are many "facts" about life that are not essentially to a public education. When schools cannot even manage to give a decent education despite all the resources thrown at them, they have absolutely no reason to go off teaching topics better left to parents. When schools learn to master the basics or reading, writing, and arithmetic, then we can discuss the extracurricular.

Further, gay marriage has no influence on whether homosexuality is taught as "normal and natural". Again, homosexuality is legal, normal (for homosexuals), and natural (found in nature).

Homosexuality is legal. Agreed.

Homosexuality is normal for homosexuals? Then let homosexuals teach homosexuals about it. For many heterosexuals, it's absolutely not normal not just for them but for anyone. And natural? Cancer occurs naturally yet I'm sure you'd try and treat it if you got it (God forbid).

Again, you missed my point. The point was that it is not Blacks that are bad or that gays are bad -- instead, STDs don't infect people merely because they are gay or Black. Rather, STDs are a negative outcome of being sexually promiscuous and not having safe sex. A same sex married couple is no more likely to get STDs than an opposite sex married couple. And with the recent study stating that 1 in 4 teenaged girl has an STD, and 1 in 4 Americans having genital herpes, it's not like heterosexuals are much better.

Since 71% of new AIDS cases is related to male to male sex, you'll have to show me the evidence that those who are married in the gay community do indeed suffer a proportionate incidence of AIDS as married heterosexuals.

 

[Copperpennies12]

To give you an example I'm sure you can relate to:

In the early days of Christianity, Christians had to meet in secret out of fear of persecution by the Romans who basically viewed Christianity as some weird Jewish sect, and as they were having many problems with the Jewish people at the time, Christians got to feel the brunt of that as well.

Had some sort of highly infectious disease spread through the Christian ranks, the Romans would have simply said that the gods were punishing the Christians with this disease. Since they had to meet in secret, presumably in tight quarters, it is not impossible to believe that an airborne disease could have done this quite easily. It was a good thing such a disease did not sweep though them, of course.

The point is that it is easy to say that a group has a problem with certain diseases, but you are not looking for the root cause. The root cause I see here is a failure for many to be allowed to live in a two-person relationship and feel they must go "underground" to satisfy their sexual cravings.

My apologies but I'm working off of what is actually occuring in the US rather than a hypothetical. In this case, you have a community that is probably more aware of AIDS than any other demographic yet still has the highest incidence by a huge margin. That tells me there is a prediliction for risky behavior. Since they have other "unnatural" sexual predilictions, I'm inclined to believe that risky sexual behavior is a part of the prediliction rather than anything else.

The average rational human being does not engage in risky sex when they are intimately familiar with the consequences.

 

[Copperpennies12]

Do you support interracial marriage? That has only been around, in all states, for about 50 years.

Your argument would have merit were it not a simple fact that racism has been contended with since the founding of our nation. The rally for "gay rights" is a relatively new phenomenon.

 

[b&wpac4]

I saw your Supreme Court citation. Could you provide more info on who said it? I am trying to find the case it was said in and under what context it was said. I find that quote disturbing on a number of levels, if nothing else that the judge seems to think that businesses closing on Sunday is observing the Sabbath.

 

[b&wpac4]

I found it. It is almost an offhand remark in that opinion. It sets not legal precedence and, therefor, is just the opinion of the justice in question. The case had nothing to do with the US being a Christian nation or not, it was about immigration.

 

[Copperpennies12]

Our ears are designed for channeling sound waves, but many people with "defects" use them to hold up their eyeglasses. You got a problem with that mis-use of physiological function?

There are secondary functions for organs. Some are obvious and others are not. Some are natural and some are not.

People born without hands have used their feet to eat with. That is overcoming a disability. Homosexuals are turning away from natural use rather than trying to make up for a handicap.

There's nothing wrong with using something for other than its designed purpose.

That's arguable. Perhaps you should research the conditions many gay men suffer from by using organs "unnaturally." Heck, many, if not most, athletes suffer from abusing their bodies.

And as you know, "reproductive value" is not necessary for marriage.

It's not necessary, but marriage for the government is the promotion of stable, healthy families that leads to a prosperous society. We'll agree to disagree that such a family could be achieved by a homosexual couple.

 

[Copperpennies12]

And yet women disproportionally get genital herpes (heterosexual women, at that) and by HPV. Does this mean we shouldn't present women as "normal" since they have a greater propensity toward some STDs? I've also previously pointed out that Blacks are also disproportionately afflicted by HIV, does this mean we shouldn't present Blacks as normal? Or perhaps STDs have nothing to do with differences like gender, race, or sexual orientation; rather it has everything to do with the name -- Sexually Transmitted Disease. That it is people having unprotected sex with a person already infected (or a carrier of the disease) that we need to worry about; not about their race, gender, or sexual orientation.

Your questions were already answered in my other posts.

 

[Copperpennies12]

Such as?

Wills, mortgages, mineral rights, etc.

Actually, contract law has to do with ones ability to trust the other party will hold up their end of the agreement. We do not hold that children can be held accountable, so I see no reason why this law would change.

We select arbitrary ages for many laws. The President has to be a certain age. To serve in the military you must be a certain age but that age isn't good enough to allow you to drink. You can't vote until a certain age. There are 12 year olds that are more mature than some 40 year olds. It's arbitrary.

Precedent of law. No court ruling has ever even come close to granting the right to sign contracts to a non-human. What would be the legal precedent to do so? Why would such a thing be allowed? An animal cannot be expected to live up to an agreement.

Who said the animal has to sign? Why does marriage even have to be a matter of consent? When you look at gay marriage and all the arguments you quickly find that it does come down to a matter of values for both sides but only one side admits it. The other side hides from it because they know if they make it a matter of values, they lose. Most people's values are against gay marriage.

 

[Skaloop]

Most people's values are against gay marriage.

Currently, yes. But in a generation or two, when the opposite is true, what will you argument be then?

 

[b&wpac4]

Who said the animal has to sign? Why does marriage even have to be a matter of consent? When you look at gay marriage and all the arguments you quickly find that it does come down to a matter of values for both sides but only one side admits it. The other side hides from it because they know if they make it a matter of values, they lose. Most people's values are against gay marriage.

My argument that people should be allowed to live the life they choose for themselves, in peace, and have the ability to have the rights and privileges within that life they choose that others are afforded is certainly about values. It is about the ideal of freedom this country was founded on and the fact that denying people rights you enjoy is fundamentally wrong.

 

[Copperpennies12]

Sorry, I'm a late comer to the thread, what reasons? Quick bullet points would be fine.

The links are still in the thread. They aren't hard to find when you search this thread and use my name.

My intent was not to offend anyone, and I apologise for hurting your feelings.

How was it not your intent to offend or be condescending by using the language you did? You didn't hurt my feelings by the way. I have to respect an opinion before my feelings can be hurt by it.

You need to apologize not about hurt feelings but for being condescending to the religious.

I am trying to explain how I see the opposition to homosexual marriage and rights, not making a value judgement on the people who oppose them themselves, if you can see the difference.

Then you'll be able to explain your quote.

Let me try another way... other than "its always been that way", I see no compelling reason to restrict the rights of homosexuals.

how about you explain your first approach, first?

 

[LightHorseman]

There are secondary functions for organs. Some are obvious and others are not. Some are natural and some are not.

So... what makes you so sure that homosexual intimacy isn't one of the secondary functions of the organs involved?

Also, I see this word "natural" again... when I read "natural", I understand it to mean "occuring in nature". Is that how you mean it, or do you mean it some other way? I ask only so that we understand each other better.