Proof that hetero and homosexuality are genetic!

[amol]

Saw this in an AP Biology video earlier this year.

Pretty interesting.

They said in humans, homosexuals are born to mothers who went through a stressful pregnancy.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: Amol
they said in humans, homosexuals are born to mothers who went through a stressful pregnancy.

that's pretty dodgy. one study found that (in the 1960s I think) then heaps of studies attempted to replicate the finding and found nothing.

 

[Glpster]

Originally posted by: shilala
By a wide majority, marriage is a religious institution in this country. The institution, as well as this country, are steeped, driven, founded, and even err in the name of religion.
The barring is going to continue. Gay marriage isn't going to happen any time soon. I'll do what I can to see to it, even if it's as little as casting my vote against.

Would I vote for a Gay Marriage? Not a chance.
Would I vote for an ammedment outlining Civil Unions? In a heartbeat.
Semantics? Absolutely.
Silly on my part? Probably.
It's because of my view of marriage. My conception is one of "Fairy Tales". A man, a woman, doves, God, a white dress, a flowing train, living happily ever after with no chance of divorce, raising beautiful children who listen to their parents, go to college, become successful, get married and bear grandchildren. The dream goes on.
In the midst of that ideal, NEVER under the white dress does there belong a dick. No balls and no hairy ass, either.
I'd welcome the opportunity to embrace a new tradition being Civil Unions, or whatever the institution would be called. I believe that same sex couples deserve it, and I believe the things afforded to non same-sex couples should be afforded to same sex couples.

I also think Nik is a sped.

Shilala you are WRONG. Besides the fact that marriage has changed significantly over the centuries, marriage in this nation is NOT by a wide margin a religious institution. Many, even most marriages may take place in the confines of a relgious facility, but the legal rights, benefits, protections, and obligations that come along with marriage are strictly secular.

But let's say that as you suggest that marriage *IS* primarily a religious institution. Then WHY (in a nation where we have freedom of religion and a constitution that mandates that our government not promote ANY relgion over any other religion) should government favor religions that perform opposite sex marriages over those that perform same sex marriages?

There are a number of religions in our nation (many Christian religions, a few of them mainstream Christian religions) that perform same sex marriage and interpret the Bible that homosexuality and same sex marriages are NOT against God's will or plan.

Are you suggesting that the Federal and State governments should give credance ONLY to those religions that perform opposite-sex marriages? THAT's a violation of the U.S. constitution.

It sounds like you want soley to keep the WORD "marriage" as meaning a union/committment between a man and a woman. Well...

a) You can't stop the meaning of words from changing, that will happen regardless

b) If gay couples and their friends and family call their life long committments "marriage" that is what it will be known as

c) Our nation has a history now, of saying seperate but equal is bad and is NOT in fact equal. So you either call same and opposite sex couples unions marriage, OR you call them ALL civil unions (and leave the word "marriage" for religious institutions and social convention to dole out).

BUT it seems you have a VERY sad and limited view of what marriage is. You seem to think that marriage is ALL about C-cks and P-ssies and the comming together of a C-ck and P-ssy That's just plain sad. Since not only do C-cks and P-ssies come together ALL the time without marriage, but most importantly marriage is about *SO* much more than SEX. Marriage is about LOVE, and committment. It's about two people making a (hopefully) life long committment to one another, to become each other's family, each other's legal next of kin, to share and enjoy their lives together, to care and provide for each other, to be and to create a family together. to raise and protect their children together (although childless couples are ALSO a legitimate family).

The government civil contract of marriage is a legal recognition of that committment and a legally binding contract of that committment, with the various rights, benefits, and protections that come with the legal recognition that these two people are now each other's immediate next-of-kin, but also with the subequent responsibilites and obligations that come with that civil contract and recognition.

Marriage is GOOD for society and our government SHOULD promote it, and it SHOULD protect two people who have made that committment to each other. There is NO legitimate reason to exclude gay couples from the civil contract of marriage, and in fact there are MANY great reasons to encourage and provide legal marriage to committed gay couples.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: Glpster

Originally posted by: shilala
By a wide majority, marriage is a religious institution in this country. The institution, as well as this country, are steeped, driven, founded, and even err in the name of religion.
The barring is going to continue. Gay marriage isn't going to happen any time soon. I'll do what I can to see to it, even if it's as little as casting my vote against.

Would I vote for a Gay Marriage? Not a chance.
Would I vote for an ammedment outlining Civil Unions? In a heartbeat.
Semantics? Absolutely.
Silly on my part? Probably.
It's because of my view of marriage. My conception is one of "Fairy Tales". A man, a woman, doves, God, a white dress, a flowing train, living happily ever after with no chance of divorce, raising beautiful children who listen to their parents, go to college, become successful, get married and bear grandchildren. The dream goes on.
In the midst of that ideal, NEVER under the white dress does there belong a dick. No balls and no hairy ass, either.
I'd welcome the opportunity to embrace a new tradition being Civil Unions, or whatever the institution would be called. I believe that same sex couples deserve it, and I believe the things afforded to non same-sex couples should be afforded to same sex couples.

I also think Nik is a sped.

Shilala you are WRONG. Besides the fact that marriage has changed significantly over the centuries, marriage in this nation is NOT by a wide margin a religious institution. Many, even most marriages may take place in the confines of a relgious facility, but the legal rights, benefits, protections, and obligations that come along with marriage are strictly secular.

But let's say that as you suggest that marriage *IS* primarily a religious institution. Then WHY (in a nation where we have freedom of religion and a constitution that mandates that our government not promote ANY relgion over any other religion) should government favor religions that perform opposite sex marriages over those that perform same sex marriages?

There are a number of religions in our nation (many Christian religions, a few of them mainstream Christian religions) that perform same sex marriage and interpret the Bible that homosexuality and same sex marriages are NOT against God's will or plan.

Are you suggesting that the Federal and State governments should give credance ONLY to those religions that perform opposite-sex marriages? THAT's a violation of the U.S. constitution.

It sounds like you want soley to keep the WORD "marriage" as meaning a union/committment between a man and a woman. Well...

a) You can't stop the meaning of words from changing, that will happen regardless

b) If gay couples and their friends and family call their life long committments "marriage" that is what it will be known as

c) Our nation has a history now, of saying seperate but equal is bad and is NOT in fact equal. So you either call same and opposite sex couples unions marriage, OR you call them ALL civil unions (and leave the word "marriage" for religious institutions and social convention to dole out).

BUT it seems you have a VERY sad and limited view of what marriage is. You seem to think that marriage is ALL about C-cks and P-ssies and the comming together of a C-ck and P-ssy That's just plain sad. Since not only do C-cks and P-ssies come together ALL the time without marriage, but most importantly marriage is about *SO* much more than SEX. Marriage is about LOVE, and committment. It's about two people making a (hopefully) life long committment to one another, to become each other's family, each other's legal next of kin, to share and enjoy their lives together, to care and provide for each other, to be and to create a family together. to raise and protect their children together (although childless couples are ALSO a legitimate family).

The government civil contract of marriage is a legal recognition of that committment and a legally binding contract of that committment, with the various rights, benefits, and protections that come with the legal recognition that these two people are now each other's immediate next-of-kin, but also with the subequent responsibilites and obligations that come with that civil contract and recognition.

Marriage is GOOD for society and our government SHOULD promote it, and it SHOULD protect two people who have made that committment to each other. There is NO legitimate reason to exclude gay couples from the civil contract of marriage, and in fact there are MANY great reasons to encourage and provide legal marriage to committed gay couples.

What a great post. :thumbsup:

 

[shilala]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Glpster

Originally posted by: shilala
By a wide majority, marriage is a religious institution in this country. The institution, as well as this country, are steeped, driven, founded, and even err in the name of religion.
The barring is going to continue. Gay marriage isn't going to happen any time soon. I'll do what I can to see to it, even if it's as little as casting my vote against.

Would I vote for a Gay Marriage? Not a chance.
Would I vote for an ammedment outlining Civil Unions? In a heartbeat.
Semantics? Absolutely.
Silly on my part? Probably.
It's because of my view of marriage. My conception is one of "Fairy Tales". A man, a woman, doves, God, a white dress, a flowing train, living happily ever after with no chance of divorce, raising beautiful children who listen to their parents, go to college, become successful, get married and bear grandchildren. The dream goes on.
In the midst of that ideal, NEVER under the white dress does there belong a dick. No balls and no hairy ass, either.
I'd welcome the opportunity to embrace a new tradition being Civil Unions, or whatever the institution would be called. I believe that same sex couples deserve it, and I believe the things afforded to non same-sex couples should be afforded to same sex couples.

I also think Nik is a sped.

Shilala you are WRONG. Besides the fact that marriage has changed significantly over the centuries, marriage in this nation is NOT by a wide margin a religious institution. Many, even most marriages may take place in the confines of a relgious facility, but the legal rights, benefits, protections, and obligations that come along with marriage are strictly secular.

But let's say that as you suggest that marriage *IS* primarily a religious institution. Then WHY (in a nation where we have freedom of religion and a constitution that mandates that our government not promote ANY relgion over any other religion) should government favor religions that perform opposite sex marriages over those that perform same sex marriages?

There are a number of religions in our nation (many Christian religions, a few of them mainstream Christian religions) that perform same sex marriage and interpret the Bible that homosexuality and same sex marriages are NOT against God's will or plan.

Are you suggesting that the Federal and State governments should give credance ONLY to those religions that perform opposite-sex marriages? THAT's a violation of the U.S. constitution.

It sounds like you want soley to keep the WORD "marriage" as meaning a union/committment between a man and a woman. Well...

a) You can't stop the meaning of words from changing, that will happen regardless

b) If gay couples and their friends and family call their life long committments "marriage" that is what it will be known as

c) Our nation has a history now, of saying seperate but equal is bad and is NOT in fact equal. So you either call same and opposite sex couples unions marriage, OR you call them ALL civil unions (and leave the word "marriage" for religious institutions and social convention to dole out).

BUT it seems you have a VERY sad and limited view of what marriage is. You seem to think that marriage is ALL about C-cks and P-ssies and the comming together of a C-ck and P-ssy That's just plain sad. Since not only do C-cks and P-ssies come together ALL the time without marriage, but most importantly marriage is about *SO* much more than SEX. Marriage is about LOVE, and committment. It's about two people making a (hopefully) life long committment to one another, to become each other's family, each other's legal next of kin, to share and enjoy their lives together, to care and provide for each other, to be and to create a family together. to raise and protect their children together (although childless couples are ALSO a legitimate family).

The government civil contract of marriage is a legal recognition of that committment and a legally binding contract of that committment, with the various rights, benefits, and protections that come with the legal recognition that these two people are now each other's immediate next-of-kin, but also with the subequent responsibilites and obligations that come with that civil contract and recognition.

Marriage is GOOD for society and our government SHOULD promote it, and it SHOULD protect two people who have made that committment to each other. There is NO legitimate reason to exclude gay couples from the civil contract of marriage, and in fact there are MANY great reasons to encourage and provide legal marriage to committed gay couples.

What a great post. :thumbsup:

Hehe, that shows just how non-forward thinking I am. I disagreed verbatim.
The post did outline nearly all the arguments for gay marriage that shore up my disdain for it, so in that sense, I suppose it was a complete success.

 

[her209]

Flamefest!

Who brought the :beer:s?

 

[shilala]

Originally posted by: her209
Flamefest!

Who brought the :beer:s?

This is not a flamefest. It's an intelligent, adult debate.
The only person who got called a name was Nik.

 

[Makromizer]

Originally posted by: Gibsons
P&N would be a good place for this thread.

Yes! We definitely need an amendment assuring gay fruit fly marriage!

 

[jagec]

Originally posted by: aidanjm
I'm just pointing out that gay men seem a bit more creative than straight guys - on average. Straight men are more physically aggressive than gay men. (They hit more people, rape more women and children, etc.) I don't think any of the above is due to "lifestlye" however. I think there are biological/ anatomical/ neurological differences between gay people and straight people (i.e., actual differences in brain structure) accounting for the differences in aptitudes. I'm just saying gays and straights are different, I'm not saying one is better than the other.

That's exactly what you're saying, you idiot. I'd think that you of all people would be more tolerant, but you sure are bigoted. You're as bad as the uber-feminists who think that women are the only thing keeping civilization alive.

Originally posted by: Nik
I pitty the heterosexual child that's forced to grow up with two mommies or two daddies. I pitty a heterosexual boy growing up with two homosexual fathers because he'll never be taught what it is to be a real man before it's too late. Hell, his fathers will probably try cramming their homosexual views down his throat early, kinda like some are doing in this thread.

I think it's funny that people base their entire lives around their sexuality.

You're gay? Great. Nobody freakin cares. With few exceptions (some on this very message board), I love how homosexuals prance around and babble constantly about their sexuality like they need someone cheering them on through life for being homosexual. Either that or they've got some big ol' thang broken in their head that makes them feel like they have to tell the world that they are homosexual - like, every single person they meat --er, I mean meet. And it's not good enough that they just tell those people. They have to talk it and walk it so everyone in line-of-site or earshot will know that they're gay. Honestly, who cares?

I don't go around babbling about how I'm heterosexual to everyone I meet. I know there are plenty of exceptions, but I live in Portland Oregon. Come on. The next step up in the gay world is to live downtown San Fran. Portland has a huge gay community and they're always bitching about how they're not accepted. Here's a clue: If you want to be accepted, stop drawing lines between you and everybody else because the only person to blame is YOU. We don't care if you're gay, so quit bringing it up like it's the key to saving the environment or the key to curing cancer.

I agree with Nik? :Q

Originally posted by: Glpster
Most life on this planet (including fruit flys and humans) share a LARGE portion of DNA genetic code.

Chimpanzees DNA, for example, is like 98% the same as a human beings.

A fruit fly's DNA is like 70% the same as a human being's.

Yeah, but considering how many genes are necessary just to build the BASICS (cell nucleus, organelles, development into specialized tissues, millions of enzymes), I wouldn't consider 70% anywhere close to similar. That's like calling a space shuttle similar to an English castle because they're both living spaces, build by humans of a hard material and designed to absorb a lot of punishment while maintaining the people inside safe.

OK, that was a bad analogy, but you get my point