Which statement about gay rights do you agree with more.

[mogrovejo]

There's no such thing as gay rights. All rights are individual, communitarian rights are not legitimate.

The law can't give rights. Individual rights are not contingent upon laws, neither derived from them.

This makes the dichotomy presented in the poll quite absurd and nonsensical.

My problem with the "gay rights movement" is that they generally understand their own right to marriage from the perspective of a social contract. I feel that for many of them the legal right to marriage is important as an instrument to promote the acceptance (do not confuse with tolerance) of sexuality by the society. I don't like that. I think people must tolerate sexuality but they shouldn't be forced to like or accept it. There's nothing wrong about being phobic - it's a right people have as well and they shouldn't be harassed or insulted for it. No individual should be forced to like gays, talk to gays or allow gays to enter in his own home/store/property/etc.

In fact, I've found that many "gay marriage proponents" would rather have "gay marriage" legalized than just have the government out of marriage business. Someone who believes that marriage is a contract funded on individual rights can't defend simultaneously that the society should have the power to legislate about it. However, I bet many who are in favour of legalizing the marriage between people of the same sex are against the marriage between siblings (or any other kind of incestuous marriage) and polygamy - using the same order of arguments, based on the importance of the common good and eventual externalities.

Anyway, I'm opposed to anyone's legal right to marriage. Marriage shouldn't be a political or legal issue, rather a private one.

[RandomGuy]

Your two blurbs were awesome. Especially the second one that agrees with the notion of sexuality being hereditary. Your facts(two) blew my mind.

There are times that I wish my 5 year old was not quite so literate.

I logged on absentmindedly, and started reading. My sweet son wanders up to ask for something, glances over at your avatar and correctly, perfectly read the words on the candy heart out loud.

This of course led to another "remember you will get in trouble if you use those words at school" lecture. Mrs. Random Guy and I both feel it best not to make too big of a deal about those words, so as not to make them stick in his mind much.

Quoth Mrs. Random Guy "It sounds so sweet coming from him..." Must. stifle. laughter.

He knows they are rude words, so we discourage them, but we don't make a big deal about it.

[RandomGuy]

Anyway, I'm opposed to anyone's legal right to marriage. Marriage shouldn't be a ... legal issue, rather a private one.

That works until the first messy "private" divorce somehow has to figure out how to "privately" divide a $200,000 asset.

The laws must somewhat reflect the reality of human existence.

If one does not have a legal framework under which to resolve differences, the alternative is barbarism.

[mogrovejo]

That works until the first messy "private" divorce somehow has to figure out how to "privately" divide a $200,000 asset.

The laws must somewhat reflect the reality of human existence.

If one does not have a legal framework under which to resolve differences, the alternative is barbarism.

People make contracts every day - many of them way more complex than a marriage - without having the government as a party.

Courts rule on patrimonial disputes every freaking day. Anyway, I suspect that if marriage wasn't a government ins ution, most of those cases would be solved by arbitration.

The "barbarism" part is a strawman. I didn't defend a political anomy. People were marrying way before the existence of the modern state.

[2Blonde]

I am way to tired to read this whole thread so... to those who said something funny & clever the other 98%

[Jekka]

I really just don't understand why we don't let people who love each other marry each other. I have this argument with Minister Mom all the time, and it always goes the same way:

Rev. Mom: But, Jessica, it's just wrong.
Me: But no one is asking YOU to perform the marriages - you don't have to perform the marriage if you don't want to.
Rev. Mom: But, Jessica, it's just wrong.

What I have learned from these repeated encounters is that you are not going to change anyone's mind. So, to those who think that same sex marriage is wrong: I know I can't change your mind, because I think it's closed. To those who are getting all kinds of crazy OCD about the poll: I don't think this thread was created to incite arguments over semantics, and I think it's sad that some people will argue over things that are so unbelievably petty just because they need to be "right". And granted, it is difficult for me to be objective about this issue, because I do know people that have suffered because of their gender or their gender preference, but I think the bigger issue is equality, and not this "extra rights" bull . I don't think there is such thing as an "extra right", because that would be "privilege". A right is a right is a right.

[MiamiHeat]

Anal sex is a significant health risk. It causes major medical damage to the area. Doctors ask sexuals to avoid routine anal sex to prevent damage.

The membranes in that area are very delicate.....human physiology is very clear about this. That area was NOT evolved/created/whatever for routine anal sex life.

It can lead to any number of medical problems :

- ruptures in the rectum,
- internal bleeding,
- tearing tissue,
- internal infection
- and even penile infection,
- anal cancer.....
- hemorrhoids
- anorectal trauma
- anal fissures

and the easiest way to catch an STD because the conditions to catch any STD are ideally suited for transmission.

[MiamiHeat]

Is There a "Gay Gene"?

Many laymen now believe that sexuality is part of who a person really is from the moment of conception.

The "genetic and unchangeable" theory has been actively promoted by gay activists and the popular media. Is sexuality really an inborn and normal variant of human nature?

No. There is no evidence that shows that sexuality is simply "genetic." And none of the research claims there is. Only the press and certain researchers do, when speaking in sound bites to the public.


How The Public Was Misled

In July of 1993, the prestigious research journal Science published a study by Dean Hamer which claims that there might be a gene for sexuality. Research seemed to be on the verge of proving that sexuality is innate, genetic and therefore unchangeablea normal variant of human nature.

Soon afterward, National Public Radio trumpeted those findings. Newsweek ran the cover story, "Gay Gene?" The Wall Street Journal announced, "Research Points Toward a Gay Gene...Normal Variation."

Of course, certain necessary qualifiers were added within those news stories. But only an expert knew what those qualifiers meant. The vast majority of readers were urged to believe that sexuals had been proven to be "born that way."

In order to grasp what is really going on, one needs to understand some littleknown facts about behavioral genetics.


Gene Linkage Studies

Dean Hamer and his colleagues had performed a common type of behavioral genetics investigation called the "linkage study." Researchers identify a behavioral trait that runs in a family, and then:

a) look for a chromosomal variant in the genetic material of that family, and

b) determine whether that variant is more frequent in family members who share the particular trait.

To the layman, the "correlation" of a genetic structure with a behavioral trait means that trait "is genetic"-in other words, inherited.

In fact, it means absolutely nothing of the sort, and it should be emphasized that there is virtually no human trait without innumerable such correlations.


Scientists Know the Truth about "Gay Gene" Research

But before we consider the specifics, here is what serious scientists think about recent genetics-of-behavior research. From Science, 1994:

Time and time again, scientists have claimed that particular genes or chromosomal regions are associated with behavioral traits, only to withdraw their findings when they were not replicated. "Unfortunately," says Yale's [Dr. Joel] Gelernter, "it's hard to come up with many" findings linking specific genes to complex human behaviors that have been replicated. "...All were announced with great fanfare; all were greeted unskeptically in the popular press; all are now in disrepute."{1}


sexual Twin Studies

Two American activists recently published studies showing that if one of a pair of identical twins is sexual, the other member of the pair will be, too, in just under 50% of the cases. On this basis, they claim that " sexuality is genetic."

But two other genetic researchers--one heads one of the largest genetics departments in the country, the other is at Harvard--comment:

While the authors interpreted their findings as evidence for a genetic basis for sexuality, we think that the data in fact provide strong evidence for the influence of the environment.{2}

The author of the lead article on genes and behavior in a special issue of Science speaks of the renewed scientific recognition of the importance of environment. He notes the growing understanding that:

... the interaction of genes and environment is much more complicated than the simple "violence genes" and intelligence genes" touted in the popular press.The same data that show the effects of genes, also point to the enormous influence of nongenetic factors.{3}


More Modest Claims to the Scientific Community

Researchers' public statements to the press are often grand and far-reaching. But when answering the scientific community, they speak much more cautiously.

"Gay gene" researcher Dean Hamer was asked by Scientific American if sexuality was rooted solely in biology. He replied:

"Absolutely not. From twin studies, we already know that half or more of the variability in sexual orientation is not inherited. Our studies try to pinpoint the genetic factors...not negate the psychosocial factors."{4}

But in qualifying their findings, researchers often use language that will surely evade general understanding making statements that will continue to be avoided by the popular press, such as:

...the question of the appropriate significance level to apply to a nonMendelian trait such as sexual orientation is problematic.{5}

Sounds too complex to bother translating? This is actually a very important statement. In layman's terms, this means:

It is not possible to know what the findings mean--if anything--since sexual orientation cannot possibly be inherited in the direct way eyecolor is.

Thus, to their fellow scientists, the researchers have been honestly acknowledging the limitations of their research. However, the media doesn't understand that message. Columnist Ann Landers, for example, tells her readers that " sexuals are born, not made." The media offers partial truths because the scientific reality is simply too unexciting to make the evening news; too complex for mass consumption; and furthermore, not fully and accurately understood by reporters.


Accurate Reporting Will Never Come in "Sound Bites"

There are no "lite," soundbite versions of behavioral genetics that are not fundamentally in error in one way or another.

Nonetheless, if one grasps at least some of the basics, in simple form, it will be possible to see exactly why the current research into sexuality means so littleand will continue to mean little, even should the quality of the research methods improveso long as it remains driven by political, rather than scientific objectives.


Understanding the Theory

There are only two major principles that need to be carefully understood in order to see through the distortions of the recent research. They are as follows:

1. Heritable does not mean inherited.

2. Genetics research which is truly meaningful will identify, and then focus on, only traits that are directly inherited.

Almost every human characteristic is in significant measure heritable. But few human behavioral traits are directly inherited, in the manner of height, for example, or eye color. Inherited means "directly determined by genes," with little or no way of preventing or modifying the trait through a change in the environment.


How to "Prove" That Basketball-Players are Born that Way

Suppose you are motivated to demonstratefor political reasons--that there is a basketball gene that makes people grow up to be basketball players. You would use the same methods that have been used with sexuality: (1) twin studies; (2) brain dissections; (3) gene "linkage" studies.

The basic idea in twin studies is to show that the more genetically similar two people are, the more likely it is that they will share the trait you are studying.

So you identify groups of twins in which at least one is a basketball player. You will probably find that if one identical twin is a basketball player, his twin brother is statistically more likely be one, too. You would need to create groups of different kinds of pairs to make further comparisons--one set of identical twin pairs, one set of nonidentical twin pairs, one set of sibling pairs, etc.

Using the "concordance rate" (the percentage of pairs in which both twins are basketball players, or both are not), you would calculate a "heritability" rate. The concordance rate would be quite high--just as in the concordance rate for sexuality.

Then, you announce to the reporter from Sports Illustrated: "Our research demonstrates that basketball playing is strongly heritable." (And you would be right. It would be "heritable"--but not directly inherited. Few readers would be aware of the distinction, however.)

Soon after, the article appears. It says:

"...New research shows that basketball playing is probably inherited. Basketball players are apparently 'born that way!' A number of outside researchers examined the work and found it substantially accurate and wellperformed..."

But no one (other than the serious scientist) notices the media's inaccurate reporting.


What All Neuroscientists Know:
The Brain Changes with Use

Then you move on to conduct some brain research. As in the well-known LeVay brain study which measured parts of the hypothalamus, your colleagues perform a series of autopsies on the brains of some dead people who, they have reason to believe, were basketball players.

Next, they do the same with a group of dead nonbasketball players. Your colleagues report that, on average, "Certain parts of the brain long thought to be involved with basketball playing are much larger in the group of basketball players."

A few national newspapers pick up on the story and editorialize, "Clearly, basketball playing is not a choice. Not only does basketball playing run in families, but even these people's brains are different."

You, of course, as a scientist, are well aware that the brain changes with use...indeed quite dramatically. Those parts responsible for an activity get larger over time, and there are specific parts of the brain that are more utilized in basketball playing.

Now, as a scientist, you will not lie about this fact, if asked (since you will not be), but neither will you go out of your way to offer the truth. The truth, after all, would put an end to the worldwide media blitz accompanying the announcement of your findings.


Gene Linkage Studies:
"Associated With" Does Not Mean "Caused By"

Now, for the last phase, you find a small number of families of basketball players and compare them to some families of nonplayers. You have a hunch that of the innumerable genes likely to be associated with basketball playing (those for height, athleticism, and quick reflexes, for example), some will be located on the x-chromosome.

You won't say these genes cause basketball playing because such a claim would be scientifically insupportable, but the public thinks "caused by" and "associated with" are synonymous.

After a few false starts, sure enough, you find what you are looking for: among the basketball-playing families, one particular cluster of genes is found more commonly.


With a Little Help from the Media

Now, it happens that you have some sympathizers at National People's Radio, and they were long ago quietly informed of your research. They want people to come around to certain beliefs, too. So, as soon as your work hits the press, they are on the air: "Researchers are hot on the trail of the Basketball Gene. In an article to be published tomorrow in Sports Science..."

Commentators pontificate about the enormous public-policy implications of this superb piece of science. Two weeks later, there it is again, on the cover of the major national newsweekly: "Basketball Gene?"

Now what is wrong with this scenario? It is simple: of course basketball playing is associated with certain genes; of course it is heritable. But it is those intermediate physiological traitsmuscle strength, speed, agility, reflex speed, height, etc.-which are themselves directly inherited. Those are the traits that make it likely one will be able to, and will want to, play basketball.

In the case of sexuality, the inherited traits that are more common among male sexuals might include a greater than average tendency to anxiety, shyness, sensitivity, intelligence, and aesthetic abilities. But this is speculation. To date, researchers have not yet sought to identify these factors with scientific rigor.

What the majority of respected scientists now believe is that sexuality is attributable to a combination of psychological, social, and biological factors.

From the American Psychological Association
"[M]any scientists share the view that sexual orientation is shaped for most people at an early age through complex interactions of biological, psychological and social factors."{6}

From "Gay Brain" Researcher Simon LeVay
"At this point, the most widely held opinion [on causation of sexuality] is that multiple factors play a role."{7}

From Dennis McFadden, University of Texas neuroscientist:
"Any human behavior is going to be the result of complex intermingling of genetics and environment. It would be astonishing if it were not true for sexuality."{8}

From Sociologist Steven Goldberg
"I know of no one in the field who argues that sexuality can be explained without reference to environmental factors."{9}

As we have seen, there is no evidence that sexuality is simply "genetic"--and none of the research itself claims there is.

Only the press and certain researchers do, when speaking in sound bites to the public.

Endnotes

{1} Mann, C. Genes and behavior. Science 264:1687 (1994).

{2} Billings, P. and Beckwith, J. Technology Review, July, 1993. p. 60.

{3} Mann, C. op. cit. pp. 1686-1689.

{4} "New Evidence of a 'Gay Gene'," by Anastasia Toufexis, Time, November 13, 1995, vol. 146, Issue 20, p. 95.

{5} Hamer, D. H., et al. Response to Risch, N., et al., "Male Sexual Orientation and Genetic Evidence," Science 262 (1993), pp. 2063-65.

{6} The American Psychological Association's pamphlet, "Answers to Your Questions About Sexual Orientation and sexuality."

{7} LeVay, Simon (1996). Science, MIT Press.

{8} "Scientists Challenge Notion that sexuality's a Matter of Choice," The Charlotte Observer, August 9, 1998.

{9} Goldberg, Steven (1994). When Wish Replaces Thought: Why So Much of What You Believe is False. Buffalo, New York: Prometheus Books.

[ComfortablyNumb]

And if you can't be with the one you love
Love the one you're with

[ploto]

Marriage is not a right in the first place. There are already limitations on who and under what cir stances people may get married. People of certain ages are not allowed to get married, and those limits are decided on a state-by-state basis. You have to apply for a license- you have to wait a certain number of days after a divorce (30 days)- you even used to have a blood test in Texas to do it. IIRC, there are even states that limit the total number of times you may get married in your lifetime in that state. So, we all know that everyone does not have the right to marry whomever they want already. Each group just wants its own determination of who should have the privilege and who should not. I know no one who thinks there should be no limitations (age, number of spouses, cousins...) so it can't be considered a right.

[Summers]

Marriage is not a right in the first place. There are already limitations on who and under what cir stances people may get married. People of certain ages are not allowed to get married, and those limits are decided on a state-by-state basis. You have to apply for a license- you have to wait a certain number of days after a divorce (30 days)- you even used to have a blood test in Texas to do it. IIRC, there are even states that limit the total number of times you may get married in your lifetime in that state. So, we all know that everyone does not have the right to marry whomever they want already. Each group just wants its own determination of who should have the privilege and who should not. I know no one who thinks there should be no limitations (age, number of spouses, cousins...) so it can't be considered a right.

Right, but assuming two men aren't 12 years old, unknowingly have gonorrhea, are still married to other men, or related, what would be the argument for not allowing them to marry?

[BacktoBasics]

There are times that I wish my 5 year old was not quite so literate.

I logged on absentmindedly, and started reading. My sweet son wanders up to ask for something, glances over at your avatar and correctly, perfectly read the words on the candy heart out loud.

This of course led to another "remember you will get in trouble if you use those words at school" lecture. Mrs. Random Guy and I both feel it best not to make too big of a deal about those words, so as not to make them stick in his mind much.

Quoth Mrs. Random Guy "It sounds so sweet coming from him..." Must. stifle. laughter.

He knows they are rude words, so we discourage them, but we don't make a big deal about it.

Sorry about that.

Ultimately I could care less about whether its a gene or not. People should be treated fairly and with respect. bigotry, for most any reason, shouldn't be tolerated.

[MiamiHeat]

Right, but assuming two men aren't 12 years old, unknowingly have gonorrhea, are still married to other men, or related, what would be the argument for not allowing them to marry?

sexual behavior among men is

a significant health risk,
a corruption of human traditional family,
creates effeminate men,
can lead to cross dressing,
etc

[MiamiHeat]

Sorry about that.

Ultimately I could care less about whether its a gene or not. People should be treated fairly and with respect. bigotry, for most any reason, shouldn't be tolerated.

I don't see people in here advocating 'bigotry' or 'treating people unfairly without respect'

We just don't want 's to be 'normalized' with a legitimate 8,000+ year old tradition between man and woman.

I'm up for legal unions of some sort, create a new name for it so when a sexual says "I'm (create word)"...... it's a sort of marriage, but for gays.

Get down to the facts, many people just do not feel that sexuality is OK.

[samikeyp]

sexual behavior among men is

a significant health risk,
a corruption of human traditional family,
creates effeminate men,
can lead to cross dressing,
etc

How is it a corruption of a human traditional family?

I have a human traditional family and know gays who are married and my family is doing just fine.

Corruption of a "traditional human family" is that family's fault, not those outside said family.

[samikeyp]

Get down to the facts, many people just do not feel that sexuality is OK.

and there is nothing wrong with people feeling that way. On the same token, there is also nothing wrong with people feeling that it is ok.

[MiamiHeat]

How is it a corruption of a human traditional family?

I have a human traditional family and know gays who are married and my family is doing just fine.

Corruption of a "traditional human family" is that family's fault, not those outside said family.

I meant in traditional human family as in traditional human marriage.

[MiamiHeat]

and there is nothing wrong with people feeling that way. On the same token, there is also nothing wrong with people feeling that it is ok.

Exactly, except this isn't about if we should allow sexuals to be sexuals. They can do that already.

What this is about is sexuals entering 'marriage'

[samikeyp]

I meant in traditional human family as in traditional human marriage.

Fair enough so I will rephrase.

I have a traditional human marriage. How is two gay people getting married going to affect that?

[mrsmaalox]

sexual behavior among men is

a significant health risk, okay
a corruption of human traditional family, um, how?
creates effeminate men, ??
can lead to cross dressing, most cross dressers aren't gay
etc

[Dr. Gonzo]

sexual behavior among men is

a significant health risk,
a corruption of human traditional family,
creates effeminate men,
can lead to cross dressing,
etc

You are stupid.

[marini martini]

He he he is!!!

[MiamiHeat]

i know u are but what am i ! He he he he!!

*rolls eyes*

[Dr. Gonzo]

Did you really roll your eyes as you posted that?

[MiamiHeat]

why, yes, yes i did.

it went like this, first i typed *rolls eyes and then I rolled my real eyes at the precise moment I pressed the * key to complete the facial expression