Homosexual Marriage

[ShadowFox]

The 75% statistic refers to childhood gender atypical behaviours rather than adult femininity. The fact that most gay adults aren't effeminate could easily be attributed to environmental factors. It could be that all gay men are born with a feminine brain but it becomes masculated by their environment. The theory would explain why so many gay people are effeminate or display gender atypical behaviour as children, which is something I've always wondered about.

If possible, provide evidence with a link.

Same could be said of black people. Should they be banned from marrying or having kids?

That's the thing, it's discrimination. The only difference is one is based on race, the other sexuality. Both are things you can't control.

[Winter wind]

Quote by: your master Forgive my naivety, ty's right? It's entirely relevant, if homosexuality is environmentally effected then the environment could be changed and homosexuality averted, which would save a lot of hardship for everyone, if it is a choice then they are consciously choosing to refute survival heuristics.

Just because it's environment doesn't mean it's a choice. And I haven't conceded it's environmental.

But that's addressed in the next post.

And if your saying that if it's environmental, we can rid sociaty of the environmental factor and cure homosexuality, I absolutely disagree. It's like saying you can rid the world of Post Tramatic Stress Disorder by ridding the world of bad incidences.

It isn't that simple.

No I don't agree with the idea of homosexuality being a choice of the subconscious or the conscious.

So if you don't think it is a choice, how can you seperate it from similar civil rights issues?

This is not about the person themselves, this is about adoption, if an adoption agency thinks a child is at risk of bullying on account of the foster parent then they should not be allowed to foster.

That's like saying interracial couples shouldn't get married because sociaty won't except the children. It's like saying minorities shouldn't serve in the military because the unit won't except them.

That is sociaty's issue, not the child's or the parents. The parents and the child are not at fault, therefore government can't create a law against them.

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Halo If possible, provide evidence with a link.

I did in my previous post.

[italiangm]

Quote by: yourmaster Perchance you have a correlation between homosexuality and cross gender traits, but you cannot begin to label it as a cause, a causational factor maybe. I am a very masculing homosexual, my femminities stretching no further then a white belt, which I am told is a woman's colour for belts. I find figures of 75% of homosexuals show femmmine traits frankly unbelievable, of the people I know that are homosexual perhaps 2 are iffemminate, two of about 25. Those are just the ones I know well.

I believe you're confusing overt effeminate behavior with other traits that are prominent in the female brain from birth.

For example, many masculine male homosexuals exhibit nurturing and emotionally-sensitive behavior not commonly seen in heterosexual males. This behavior is sometimes expressed during childhood years, where non-effeminate male offspring show interest in helping mom, caring for siblings, learning to cook, etc, all without parental prompting or force. These positive female traits tend to overshadow some of the more aggressive behavior exhibited in the average male child. These positive female traits often serve to support and stabilize the heterosexual family unit, especially one with many offspring. As described elsewhere in this thread, at least one study has shown the likelihood of a female bearing a male homosexual child increases with each male child she bears, regardless of who the father is.

Why? Well, let's take the theory down one path to its logical conclusion by posing a fascinating question: What if female biology predispositions fertile women to increase the chance of giving birth to a homosexual male child with each birth? The purpose? Provide a unique support system to a household with many children. If true, this mix of positive male and female traits expressed in male homosexuals may be an evolutionary response aimed at providing heterosexuals with a survival advantage.

This positive, female-associated behavior expressed by homosexual males commonly extends into adulthood, continuing to offer a synergistic support mechanism and survival advantage.

[yourmaster]

Quote by: Tycoon I'm kind of lost on how you think adoption is a bad thing, but this is going off on a tangent. As I said, marriage and procreation are mutually exclusive. Are you disagreeing with that or can we just drop the whole procreation discussion?

As I have said, my arguement is not for full out discrimination or banning gay marriage, but it instead inclined towards limiting rights, homosexual standard rights and privellages should be stripped away and instead granted at childbirth. The child being the key factor here, and the morality of adoption thus being equally key.

Quote by: Tycoon When you say they do not contribute, the only thing you can be talking about is procreation. As I have said, this is only a tangent to the discussion of homosexual marriage. It is contradicted by adoption and surrogate mothers, and it is also a completely irrelevant topic as nobody is required to procreate. Homosexuals chose not to, just as many heterosexuals do, though for different reasons.

A very important tangeant, nobody is required to procreate, but 10% drops in procreative parents should not be encouraged. Please, I have never suggested, even for a moment, that homosexuals or unprocreative members of society do not contribute, anyone with half a brain can understand that they do, but generally not equally.

Quote by: Tycoon I certainly hope that a homosexual couple wouldn't be living in an area so discriminatory that their child's life would be in danger. Besides, like I said, they don't have to put their child through public education.

Often that is not a matter of their choice, areas where a homosexually raised child can grow up without bullying are practically non existent. Private education is expensive and many parents will not be able to afford it, home schooling requires large amounts of qualifications and intellect to be viable, obviously it makes it hard for adoptive parents to privately school their kids.

Quote by: Tycoon That isn't relevant at all. The cause of homosexuality is not the topic of discussion, the right of homosexual marriage is.

You're unbearably quick to write things off as irrelevant, I understand where you are coming from when you say some of these tangeants are irrelevant, but the ones I have not dropped already are not irrelevant.[/quote]

[yourmaster]

Quote by: The Bacon Guy Same could be said of black people. Should they be banned from marrying or having kids?

I know few people that would bully a child for having black foster parents nowadays, only the people in the very roughest of areas. Racism is widely known to be discrimination and is heavily frowned upon by most, homophobia is nothing like it and is supported by the majority.

[yourmaster]

Quote by: Winter wind Just because it's environment doesn't mean it's a choice. And I haven't conceded it's environmental. But that's addressed in the next post. And if your saying that if it's environmental, we can rid sociaty of the environmental factor and cure homosexuality, I absolutely disagree. It's like saying you can rid the world of Post Tramatic Stress Disorder by ridding the world of bad incidences. It isn't that simple.

I'm an idealist, get used to me stiving to reach things that aren't that simple, it's what I do.

Quote by: Winter wind So if you don't think it is a choice, how can you seperate it from similar civil rights issues?

Quote by: Winter wind That is sociaty's issue, not the child's or the parents. The parents and the child are not at fault, therefore government can't create a law against them.

Here idealism goes out the window, there's things that are not that easy and there are things that are not possible for the short term, in this case eliminating homophobia, homophobia will go, it is diminishing and being thrown from constitutions all around the world, the time of the homosexual will come, but it is not yet and we have to act to protect the children that are "not at fault" until that time comes.

[Thanatos]

Quote by: yourmaster I know few people that would bully a child for having black foster parents nowadays, only the people in the very roughest of areas. Racism is widely known to be discrimination and is heavily frowned upon by most, homophobia is nothing like it and is supported by the majority.

You're arguing against yourself. Things changed for blacks so why can't they change for other sorts of bigotry?

[yourmaster]

I remain sceptical of the theory that the more children a mother has the more likely the child is to be homosexual. That however is irrelevant.
I concede that many homosexuals to carry such traits much more highly then heterosexuals, figures of 75% are still ridiculous in my opinion, 40% seems closer to me.
Morality of homosexuality is not in question here, in their childhood some homosexual children may help minorly in secure development of a large family, but in the sense that homosexual children often rip families apart when they tell their parents and family that they are gay when the family is homophobic and the fact that they in turn do not produce a family of their own easily counterbalances it.

[yourmaster]

Quote by: Thanatos You're arguing against yourself. Things changed for blacks so why can't they change for other sorts of bigotry?

They can, I hope they will, but the fact is that's how it is today and it's going to be how it is tommorow, it could be 50 years until homosexuals are accepted properly, then laws can be changed.

[Tycoon]

As I have said, my arguement is not for full out discrimination or banning gay marriage, but it instead inclined towards limiting rights, homosexual standard rights and privellages should be stripped away and instead granted at childbirth. The child being the key factor here, and the morality of adoption thus being equally key.

And I am saying that any homosexual couple that does not have a child should have just as many rights and priveleges as any heterosexual couple that does not have a child. Any homosexual couple that does have a child should have just as many rights and priveleges as any heterosexual couple that also has a child.

A very important tangeant, nobody is required to procreate, but 10% drops in procreative parents should not be encouraged. Please, I have never suggested, even for a moment, that homosexuals or unprocreative members of society do not contribute, anyone with half a brain can understand that they do, but generally not equally.

You should not lump couples into the two separate groups of homosexual and heterosexual. While it is true that homosexual couples procreate less it really doesn't matter. The homosexual couples that do procreate should be given the same priveleges as the heterosexual couples that procreate, and the homosexual couples that do not procreate should be given the same priveleges as the heterosexual couples that do not procreate.

[Tycoon]

Often that is not a matter of their choice, areas where a homosexually raised child can grow up without bullying are practically non existent. Private education is expensive and many parents will not be able to afford it, home schooling requires large amounts of qualifications and intellect to be viable, obviously it makes it hard for adoptive parents to privately school their kids.

Well there are homosexual couples that can send their children to private school. And home-schooling requires less qualifications than you imagine. The point is, there are exceptions, and just because some homosexual couples chose not to procreate doesn't mean the others should be taken away from.

You're unbearably quick to write things off as irrelevant, I understand where you are coming from when you say some of these tangeants are irrelevant, but the ones I have not dropped already are not irrelevant.

I answered you with my last posts just now.

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Mast I know few people that would bully a child for having black foster parents nowadays,

I was talking specifically of the life threatening comment you made, rather than simple bullying. If it's bullying we're talking about, then fat, ugly or old people should also be denied the right to adopt based on the potential for their kid to be bullied.

[italiangm]

Quote by: yourmaster Morality of homosexuality is not in question here, in their childhood some homosexual children may help minorly in secure development of a large family, but in the sense that homosexual children often rip families apart when they tell their parents and family that they are gay when the family is homophobic and the fact that they in turn do not produce a family of their own easily counterbalances it.

Small efforts often yield large benefits. It's called leverage. If a small effort succeeds in reducing family stress, then it supports survival.

Let's be clear about who is to blame if a family is "ripped apart" by a child's disclosure of their homosexuality: That blame is shared equally by a xenophobic society and parents who buy into that ineffective paradigm.

The fact that homosexual males rarely reproduce has not affected population growth. The rate of homosexual expression appears to be a fairly constant percentage of total population, most recently pegged at 4-6%.

Whatever the actual percentage, I suspect there's an evolutionary reason for its consistency. In evolutionary terms, it amounts to leveraging a tiny dip in reproduction to allocate resources required to encourage species survival. That payoff easily dwarfs your "counterbalance" assertion.

[Winter wind]

Quote by: yourmaster I'm an idealist, get used to me stiving to reach things that aren't that simple, it's what I do.

why would you want to rid the world of homosexuality in the first place?

Here idealism goes out the window, there's things that are not that easy and there are things that are not possible for the short term, in this case eliminating homophobia, homophobia will go, it is diminishing and being thrown from constitutions all around the world, the time of the homosexual will come, but it is not yet and we have to act to protect the children that are "not at fault" until that time comes.

When is the best time for equality? Tomorrow, a year, a decade, a century, never?

The best time for justice is always the present moment. Homophobia will die out as homosexuals become more mainstream with marriage and such. I've lived through it and I can tell you that as soon as people get to know you aren't so weird and can see past the superficial, they change their minds real fast.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: The Bacon Guy The 75% statistic refers to childhood gender atypical behaviours rather than adult femininity. The fact that most gay adults aren't effeminate could easily be attributed to environmental factors. It could be that all gay men are born with a feminine brain but it becomes masculated by their environment. The theory would explain why so many gay people are effeminate or display gender atypical behaviour as children, which is something I've always wondered about.

Couldn't that be in large part because their bodies are producing testoterone?


( edit )Oh, wait, I think I might have misnderstood the issue.


Well, if that seems stupid, and bass ackwards, I misunderstood the point being made.

[Tycoon]

Good news!
California's top court legalizes gay marriage - Yahoo! News

[ShadowFox]

hopefully it will spread. Though i still find it disturbing that 26 states ave constitutional amendments banning gay marriage. Wait, i thought the constitution was how the government was supposed to run, not how the people were?

[Tycoon]

hopefully it will spread. Though i still find it disturbing that 26 states ave constitutional amendments banning gay marriage. Wait, i thought the constitution was how the government was supposed to run, not how the people were?

Actually, there are only two states that don't have a ban on gay marriage, and those are Massachusetts and now California. The twenty-six you are thinking of already back the national ban of gay-marriage.

And if that ban goes through in November, it overrides the legal gay-marriage in California and Massachusetts.

[Sorreltail]

There is no reason one should not be able to marry the other because they are the same sex.