Male Sexual Orientation Influenced by Genes

Once again- from the 'published' Wisconsin court decision:

Second, there are obvious differences between the justifications for the ban on samesex
marriage and other types of marriage restrictions.

For example, polygamy and incestraise concerns about abuse, exploitation and threats to the social safety net.

A more fundamental point is that Wisconsin’s ban on same-sex marriage is different from other
marriage restrictions because it completely excludes gay persons from participating in the
institution of marriage in any meaningful sense. In other words, gay persons simply are
asking for the right to marry someone. With the obvious exception of minors, no other class
is being denied this right. As in Romer, plaintiffs are not asking for “special rights”; they are
asking only for the rights that every adult already has.

 

and it's NONEXISTENT in a woman with a hysterectomy marrying a man.

So, for the 1000th time, (given you don't oppose that kind of marriage) you show that your argument is phony.

 

BTW, back on topic....which believe it or not was on Male Sexuality and Genetics....

I wonder if some of our learned folks who are antipathetic-to-gay-rights could tell us something.

If a boy is raised in a household by two lesbians...does he-

A. Grow up to become heterosexual or homosexual due to his genetics?

B. Grow up to be homosexual due to being in a home with homosexual parents?

C. Grow up to be heterosexual due to being in a home where the sexual orientation is towards attraction to women...and thus as an adult male he grows up attracted to women?

Given they deny "A"....but claim that exposure to orientation at home influences sexual preference....I'm interested in if they can make a case for "B" and against "C"?

 

UNLESS an application was contested and the state was able to convince the court that there is some compelling reason against it. Yes.

Yes, it is. The state can't find a compellng reason why not.

Compelling reason, dixon. Any two consenting adults can marry UNLESS the state can find some compelling reason otherwise. The legitimate government interest lies not in permitting something, but in prohibiting it.

UNLESS they prohibit homosexuals from marrying without any compelling reason. Which they do.

So far, the courts have unanimously ruled that the inability to procreate does not disqualify someone's right to marriage. Not for reasons of age, sterility, or same sex. Inability to procreate is clearly NOT a compelling reason to prohibit any marriage.

So what? If those two take their case to court, and full due process is applied, then I will accept the result of that process.

 

Nonsense. When it was a crime for a man and woman to engage in sexual relations without being married, the governmental interest was served by prohibiting sex between unmarried heterosexual couples. Those laws have been repealed, leaving only the inclusion of heterosexual couples to serve that interest.

 

I dont recall anyone ever denying that genetics were responsible for heterosexual attraction.

 

And for the thousandth time, married couples not procreating is of no concern to the government. It is women procreating outside of marriage that is the concern.

 

Basic political theory. Read a book.

Not really. There was a time when the public, in its wisdom, decided to try to legislate morality. Legislating morality has turned out not to be in the public interest.

For a couple of good reasons. They were unenforceable and improper.

Sheesh, you are one single-minded fanatic. Prohibiting some people from marrying doesn't mean that other people marrying is a bad idea. The goal here is marriage. It really doesn't matter which marriages YOU feel should be permitted because YOU feel that those marriages somehow advance some public interest.

Let's once again try to do an end-run around the knee-jerk bigotry. Let's look at hang gliding. This sport is dangerous, and doesn't conceivably serve the public interest. Why is it legal? Because there is no compelling reason to outlaw it. It endangers only those who choose to take the risk. Not the government's business. Now, YOU would prohibit it because YOU couldn't find how it helps society or government or whatever your criteria are for picking which rights and freedoms which people should not enjoy.

 

Or making that claim either. In fact, the source of the direction of sexual attraction is not known. If genetics play any roll in orientation, it is surely very indirect. Perhaps genetics influence the prenatal environment in ways that give certain orientations an edge. It's frankly irrational to say that genetics is responsible for one orientation but not another. That would be like saying that genetics is responsible for blond hair but not black hair. Either genetics is responsible for hair color (or sexual orientation), or it's not. That includes either ALL hair colors (or orientations), or none.

Now, genetics is clearly responsible for the sex drive itself.

- - - Updated - - -

Which is utterly irrelevant.

 

Look- Dixon can make up his own law now!

 

And for the thousandth time- prohibiting same gender couples from marrying actually is against that 'concern'.

If a lesbian couple chooses to have a child together and
a) they are not married- the non-biological mother has no legal obligation to support or parent their child but if
b) they are married, the non-biological mother has the same legal obligation to support or parent their child as any married heterosexual spouse has.

Denying same gender couples to marry actually increases the number of single mothers raising a child without a second parents financial and parenting support.

- - - Updated - - -

And the Supreme Court has made it very clear- that Americans have the right to determine who they will have sex with, whether they will procreate- and to get married.

 

I don't care. I point out when you're wrong when I see it and will continue to do so.

It didn't take a couple years. I've never said they should be. I just continue to point out its irrelevant to the issue of same sex marriage, and is YOUR strawman and red herring.

- - - Updated - - -

Except that's a lie.

 

Except this is a lie

 

Except it's not.

 

Asked him where in the Constitution it says the Government has an "interest" in single motherhood or promoting it or even opposing it.

He admitted there was no such interest Constitutionally. Of course he did it by saying "there is no Constitutional promotion of gay marriage"....which didn't deflect from the fact he just makes crap up as he goes along.

 

Do an OP on that, dixon and see what responses you get from your "allies"?


Oh...wait...I forgot ....you don't do OPs, do you? Just leap into other ones and try to change the subject. My bad.

 

Round and round the Dixon Marriage-Go-Round goes...

"ANSWERED REPEATEDLY!!! Promoting potential procreation in marriage is VITAL to the Government's interest to reduce single motherhood. But potential procreation in marriage is IRRELEVANT in heterosexual marriage if the couple is infertile. It doesn't matter if procreation occurs...or even if there is potential for procreation. No, I am not contradictnig myself, you simply are too stupid to see clear and rational logic!!!!"

And all this malarky and double-talk....

because his brother married a woman who later realized she was a lesbian after they had had a son together and she's living with her girlfriend (and perhaps future wife?).

The only REAL reason dixon is anti-gay.

 

Hey Dixon. More than ever I have reason to believe that all of this equine excrement is just a smoke screen to rail against gay rights while not admitting what is really behind it. The truth is apparent in the thread:

http://www.politicalforum.com/polit...-americans-dangerously-ignorant-politics.html

In that thread I asked you a very specific question about your beliefs and you have yet to answer. I asked you 3 times so it's apparent that you do not want to answer. Why don't you just be honest and tell us. Don't make me out you. You know what the question is and I do believe that I know the answer. Lets not keep everyone in suspense now.

 

I see a thread with 131 posts. I wont be searching for a question to me. And if you asked me about gay marriage in a thread about our founding principles and claim that Americans are ignoramouses, you should expect me to ignore it as its just another of your attempts to avoid the topic of discussion.

 

But I wasnt. Had the statement been directed to you it would have been a strawman. Directed to her/him/it, it is the topic of discussion.

 

There are actually 139 posts and I'm referring to #136. Are you going to actually pretend that you don't know what the question is? I'll make it easy:

Anyone who reads your posts on that thread will have the same suspicions that I do. I have to wonder what you would say about Michelle Bachmann, Rick Perry and Sarah Palin's views about homosexuality.

 

The complexities of genetics are indeed interesting. Particularly intriguing are the numerous ways in which scientists, politicians, and the general populace perceive genetic engineering.

Scientists have found genetic abnormalities that seem to cause certain cancers. It's generally, though not universally accepted that in such cases, it's ethical and desirable to find ways to alter those genes such that the cancer-related abnormalities are eliminated.

Scientists have also found genes that might be engineered such that the height, eye color, and perhaps the sex of an unborn child might be altered to the desire of the parents. Unlike cancer genes, this objective of genetic engineering is most often frowned upon.

In most of human history, those persons who were genetically homosexual or lesbian would never reproduce, holding exclusively to their own sex. In today's world, artificial insemination, either of a lesbian or of a female surrogate in the case of homosexuals may well assure that the related gay and lesbian genes are continued. Is genetic engineering a desirable approach to eliminating homosexuality and lesbianism??

Why would "some" genetic abnormalities be worthy of modifying such that "normality" is achieved, while other genetic abnormalities are treated as sacrosanct?

Please refrain from "flames", as this is a purely intellectual inquiry!

 

I believe "the U.S. Constitution and our laws are based on Judeo-Christian values". "Should" they be? Im an atheist. I have no allegiance to them but Im sure I would prefer them to YOUR values whose disdain for Christians is only exceeded by your love of homosexuals.

 

Of course you were. Thats why I pointed it out, lol

Nope. It was a strawman directed at him as well. Nobody is making the argument you alleged.

 

Well that is certainly an interesting and unexpected response considering your posts, with numerous quotes by the founders of the nation professing their devotion to Christianity and Christ. However, my policy is to never question someone professed religious beliefs since, what is in one’s heart and mind can never be completely known by another.

Again, I will pose the question of what are these Judeo Christian values and how do they differ from universal human values and the values of other religions, as I did in that thread. The values that people hold are often attributed to their religion but do they necessarily have their origin in that religion?

And now I’ll ask this, do those Judo Christian values include discrimination and hatred? Do they allow you to treat others as vermin and flotsam because you disapprove of who and what they are? Oh right, you have no allegiance to those values so, yes, you can do exactly that. So while much of the oppression of gays is due to Christianity, your hatred is due to the lack of Christianity? Then where to you get your values? What ground you? I’m curious.

By the way, I don’t hate Christians. I too adhere to Christian values. The basic values free of church religious man made doctrine. The basic values like "do unto others...". I can be a philosophical Christian. What I hate is how some Christians behave and treat others in the name of Christianity, like Bachman, Perry and Palin. Love homosexuals? I respect and value them as I do all living beings. You should try it. You might not be so miserable. I love them no more or less than anyone else.