California Supreme Court struck down the state's gay marriage ban

[Mooseman]

The National Council for Adoption is wrong and a bunch of blithering idiots.....

Race is genetic, culture is learned....... culture is a behavior, race is not......

Of course these are my opinions, does it make any sense?

 

[Spiderman]

Of course, just like my opinion is that neither race nor sex should matter when raising a child.

Tell me, do YOU think they do?

 

[Mooseman]

That is immaterial.... I was just saying that they were not the same things.... apples and oranges..... you are putting them together as if they are the same...

One (race) has no judgments needed...... you can't change your race.... not even Mr. Jackson.....
The other is a behavior and that needs to be judged good, bad or somewhere in the middle..... you can always change your behavior, no matter what that behavior is.... it may not be easy or even wanted, but it is always possible....

 

[Spiderman]

Dude, before we even get into the argument whether same-sex is genetic or not itself (and thus *can't* be changed), we're not talking about people changing themselves. We're talking about whether sex and race matter when raising a child - someone else.

Genetics/behaviors all combine to make up a person - it doesn't matter whether such things can be changed or not (and usually, by the time someone is ready to adopt a child, they're less likely to change anyway). What matters is whether the people love and care for a child and raise them the best they know how.

But going back to my first statement, I believe there's pretty compelling evidence that homosexuality IS genetic and thus will satisfy your "apples to apples" comparison which you seem so focused on.

 

[Oversoul]

turgy22's post (the one in the quotes) pretty much nailed the legal aspects associated with marriage that I was thinking of.

But most of those are NOT artifacts of theocratic systems or the power of the RCC in Europe. I could be off base, but I doubt that churches had all that much influence on tax breaks for filing jointly.

I am curious to find out whether such legal aspects started when religious institutions/thinkers held sway because it shows they were made at a time WHEN religion and state were together. They aren't now obviously, and some of the argument being made right now is that a "religious" marriage should be separate from state. But if the legal aspects started when they were together, then that whole argument falls apart - religious marriages *have* to be tied to secular marriages.

Why? I mean, obviously the state isn't going to recognize religious marriages in which the participants don't jump through all of the proper hoops that would be required to certify any other marriage. But aside from having their marriages be recognized by the state, why would religious institutions feel obligated to have their marriage have anything to do with secular standards? And regardless of whether they do or not, why would the history of marriage's development have anything to do with it?

As for that other thing, I'm not sure you and Mooseman disagree much (in this case, anyway), just you guys got hung up on a semantic thing.

I believe there's pretty compelling evidence that homosexuality IS genetic

Well, that depends. In psychology, there's a branch called "behavioral genetics" dealing with the psychological aspects of people that are innate. In this field, from my understanding of it, homosexuality is considered genetic. But in actual genetics, well, it's a bit foggier...

There's certainly not a "gay" gene being passed down to certain people. But there might be some more complicated genetic interactions that have this sort of effect. There are some correlations with homosexuality and different traits that suggest a genetic mechanism of some kind.

There is compelling evidence that homosexuality is related to embryonic hormone exposure levels. Of course, conditions in the uterus would largely be determined by the mother's genes (although there's definitely potential for some environmental factors to come into play), so maybe you'd say that still counts as genetic?

 

[Spiderman]

But most of those are NOT artifacts of theocratic systems or the power of the RCC in Europe. I could be off base, but I doubt that churches had all that much influence on tax breaks for filing jointly.

True, but I was wondering if there were any that *were* legacies.

Why? I mean, obviously the state isn't going to recognize religious marriages in which the participants don't jump through all of the proper hoops that would be required to certify any other marriage. But aside from having their marriages be recognized by the state, why would religious institutions feel obligated to have their marriage have anything to do with secular standards? And regardless of whether they do or not, why would the history of marriage's development have anything to do with it?

It's more for informational purposes since a couple members here have stated their preference/belief that marriage should be religious only since it "came from religion" (although I think Modus has provided example that it hasn't).

As for that other thing, I'm not sure you and Mooseman disagree much (in this case, anyway), just you guys got hung up on a semantic thing.

Too true There's also that "semantic" thing of me asking whether the church had legal power and people dissected that to there always being a church and head of state. Maybe it's my questions

About homosexuality and genetics: I don't follow it too closely, but while there may not be a "gay gene", I thought there's something in the DNA that predisposes a person towards one sex or the other. It may not be passed on but if it's in the DNA, it comes from birth and is not a "learned behavior" later on in life.

 

[EricBess]

If homosexuality were genetic, it would have died out long ago. There is something in the DNA that predisposes a person towards one sex or the other. It's whether they have XX or XY chromosomes and it's called "gender"... Yes, I understand that this isn't what you are talking about, you are talking about something that predisposes certain people to develop feelings towards members of their own gender.

There is evidence of predispositions towards alcholism. Should people with such predispositions get off easy if they abuse a spouse? There is evidence of predisposition towards other violence as well, such as some serial killers. Should they be escape death row because of that? I would argue that just about everyone has some predisposition toward some sort of improper behavior. Some people are greedy by nature and some are just mean.

And yes, some of that behavior is learned or at least influenced by surroundings and I certainly don't know enough to know how much is what, but I question most "studies" because they are often bias by the results they want to find before they start.

Speaking of studies - Spiderman - I know of no study that conclusively suggests that a child raised by to daddies or two mommies is better or worse off than a child raised by a mother and a father. Part of the problem you would have is that such studies are inherently bias (and there have been studies that suggest both, but none "conclusive"). Another problem is that there is no control group because to perform such studies, all else would have to be equal and that is simply impossible since no two sets of parents are going to raise their children the same way.

But you also asked if anyone believed that there were problems and I certainly do. Again, my viewpoint is based on the fact that we are all children of God, which means that it is inherently based on religion. But, anyone who accepts that has to accept that there is a purpose for gender differences beyond just procreation (as evidenced by certain worm species that don't have gender differences, for examle).

There is no doubt here that in certain things, men and women are inherently different. There are certainly exceptions, but in general, men do not show compassion the same way women do. And women do not relate on a physical level the same way men do. And just from a practical standpoint, a child going through changes is going to relate to a parent of their gender better because that parent has gone through the same, while the parent of the opposite gender has not.

If you accept that we are children of God, then you pretty much have to accept that a child reared by two fathers or two mothers is going to be missing out on something pretty important.

 

[rokapoke]

If you accept that we are children of God, then you pretty much have to accept that a child reared by two fathers or two mothers is going to be missing out on something pretty important.

I disagree. Though I'm a thoroughly-nonpracticing Lutheran, I do believe in God and that He made us with the capability of making our own decisions.

child going through changes is going to relate to a parent of their gender better because that parent has gone through the same, while the parent of the opposite gender has not.

Isn't the next logical step in this argument that single mothers are less capable of raising sons, and single fathers are less capable of raising daughters? Would you have their children taken from them or have children denied to them on that basis?

 

[Spiderman]

Ugh... maybe we're getting into semantics again with the word "genetics"... it appears you guys are taking it to mean "passing on to offspring" while I take it to mean "it's in your genes/DNA from birth and is not a learned behavior". In other words, it's something you can't change about yourself.

And just from a practical standpoint, a child going through changes is going to relate to a parent of their gender better because that parent has gone through the same, while the parent of the opposite gender has not.

Depends. If, say, the male parent happens to have all sisters and is very close to them, he might know about the female changes as well as anyone else. Same thing on the female side.

If you accept that we are children of God, then you pretty much have to accept that a child reared by two fathers or two mothers is going to be missing out on something pretty important.

Like rokapoke said, but also, that's assuming that those 3 are the only ones in the social circle, which I doubt very much. I would be willing to bet that there's some other figure of the other sex in that circle who can take on a "mentor" role or whatever.

 

[Oversoul]

If homosexuality were genetic, it would have died out long ago.

This is wrong. If it were so simple as one gene that isn't linked to anything else of note and makes people completely homosexual, you'd be right, but it isn't that simple. The correlations between homosexuality and other traits suggest that its genetic factors ARE linked to other things. And prenatal hormone theory complicates it even further. If even some of a person's sexuality is dictated by embryonic hormone exposure levels (and my guess is that more than some of it is), natural selection acting against it goes out the window.

Furthermore, most people are not 100% homosexual. Most people are not 100% heterosexual either. There seems to be a spectrum of bisexuality, and people identify themselves as either homosexual or heterosexual based on which side of the spectrum they are closer to. And of course, people who are rather close to the middle will instead identify themselves as bisexual. Many self-identified homosexuals try to be "straight" or otherwise engage in heterosexual behavior at some point, so it's not like every homosexual is a genetic dead end.

Also, in other animals there is evidence of cases where homosexual behavior is selected for. For example, among bonobos, the femals often engage in sexual behavior with each other, which seems to foster bonding and strengthen their community.

There is something in the DNA that predisposes a person towards one sex or the other. It's whether they have XX or XY chromosomes and it's called "gender"...

Actually, gender is based on one's self-conception. The term for being biologically male or female is "sex." And not everyone falls neatly into those two categories. For example, see androgen sensitivity syndrome.

Yes, I understand that this isn't what you are talking about, you are talking about something that predisposes certain people to develop feelings towards members of their own gender.

It's more than just a psychological predisposition. Homosexuals tend to have different physiological reactions to pheromones than heterosexuals.

There is evidence of predispositions towards alcholism. Should people with such predispositions get off easy if they abuse a spouse? There is evidence of predisposition towards other violence as well, such as some serial killers. Should they be escape death row because of that? I would argue that just about everyone has some predisposition toward some sort of improper behavior. Some people are greedy by nature and some are just mean.

You're changing the subject. You believe that homosexuality is wrong and should not be condoned. Legally, that issue seems to be pretty well settled and doesn't really have any bearing on gay marriage.

And yes, some of that behavior is learned or at least influenced by surroundings and I certainly don't know enough to know how much is what, but I question most "studies" because they are often bias by the results they want to find before they start.

Speaking of studies - Spiderman - I know of no study that conclusively suggests that a child raised by to daddies or two mommies is better or worse off than a child raised by a mother and a father. Part of the problem you would have is that such studies are inherently bias (and there have been studies that suggest both, but none "conclusive"). Another problem is that there is no control group because to perform such studies, all else would have to be equal and that is simply impossible since no two sets of parents are going to raise their children the same way.

Obviously no two sets of parents are going to be the same. But it is possible to determine statistical relationships.

But you also asked if anyone believed that there were problems and I certainly do. Again, my viewpoint is based on the fact that we are all children of God, which means that it is inherently based on religion. But, anyone who accepts that has to accept that there is a purpose for gender differences beyond just procreation (as evidenced by certain worm species that don't have gender differences, for examle).

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

There is no doubt here that in certain things, men and women are inherently different. There are certainly exceptions, but in general, men do not show compassion the same way women do. And women do not relate on a physical level the same way men do. And just from a practical standpoint, a child going through changes is going to relate to a parent of their gender better because that parent has gone through the same, while the parent of the opposite gender has not.

If you accept that we are children of God, then you pretty much have to accept that a child reared by two fathers or two mothers is going to be missing out on something pretty important.

Regardless of whether that's true, and I really wouldn't know if it is, those of us who do NOT accept the premise that we are "children of God" do not have a reason to accept your conclusion that a child reared by two same-sex parents is goign to be missing out on something important.

Also, homosexual couples in this country are allowed to raise children. So are single mothers/fathers, for that matter. They already have the baby, EB. Why not let them have the bathwater too?

 

[Mooseman]

I disagree. Though I'm a thoroughly-nonpracticing Lutheran, I do believe in God and that He made us with the capability of making our own decisions.

So, then we have the capacity to change our behavior?

 

[EricBess]

I disagree. Though I'm a thoroughly-nonpracticing Lutheran, I do believe in God and that He made us with the capability of making our own decisions.

Agreed, we have free agency. However, we also are given the possibility of taking another human life, but that doesn't mean it is correct to do so.

Isn't the next logical step in this argument that single mothers are less capable of raising sons, and single fathers are less capable of raising daughters? Would you have their children taken from them or have children denied to them on that basis?

Single parents are less capable of raising children period. Ask one if it wouldn't be easier with someone else to help. And I'm not condemning anyone here. Situations are very different and it's almost never possible to have an ideal situation. As an aside, there is strong evidence to show that children with a parent who has died are better adapted than children with a parent who has abandoned them or of divorced parents.

In other words, it's something you can't change about yourself.

I did understand, but I also addressed that. Perhaps you cannot change your disposition, but you can also select your behavior and just because you are genetically predisposed one way or another does not make that behavior automatically correct. Like I said, some people are predisposed to be more abusive and violent. Should they be let off the hook if they are only acting on those impulses?

Like rokapoke said, but also, that's assuming that those 3 are the only ones in the social circle, which I doubt very much. I would be willing to bet that there's some other figure of the other sex in that circle who can take on a "mentor" role or whatever.

Sure, but that's not the same as having the role model at home.

So, then we have the capacity to change our behavior?

Of course we do. People overcome bad habits all the time. Not saying it's easy, but...

Way too much to quote

Oversoul - you are arguing legal. For the most part, I agree with you on a legal standpoint. Government should stay out of it completely. This is not an issue to be addressed by law.

But that goes both ways also. The laws should not force schools to teach that same-sex marriages are correct. As long as I teach my children that we have to respect another person's right to do what they want, I shouldn't be chastised for telling them that such behavior is incorrect. Just like I teach my children not to smoke, but I also teach them not to hate people who do.

As for gender vs sex, you are arguing semantics and that may be the "technical" difference assigned the two words, but I would still argue that they are the same and that saying the two can be different for a given individual is saying that God messed up. God certainly allows us to have challenges and things we need to overcome in life.

And yes, my argument is based on some religious postulates, so if you don't accept those postulates, then you are free to not accept the conclusion. Personally, I think that there are a lot more people who claim to be athiest than that actually are, but whatever.

Regardless of whether you agree with me, however, if I am correct than we will eventually come to realize that a breakdown in societal values of what constitutes family will eventually lead to a breakdown in society itself.

I guess what I'm saying is that I completely agree with you from a legal standpoint, but I don't believe that ultimately this is a question about legality.

As for the original question of marriage, I go back to my standpoint of civil union. If you want to change the laws so that all unions are "equal" (yeah, right), then don't have the state recognize "marriage" at all. Have that a strictly religious concept and change the name of a "marriage licence" for everyone.

 

[Spiderman]

I did understand, but I also addressed that. Perhaps you cannot change your disposition, but you can also select your behavior and just because you are genetically predisposed one way or another does not make that behavior automatically correct. Like I said, some people are predisposed to be more abusive and violent. Should they be let off the hook if they are only acting on those impulses?

Ah, then you get into the nitty-gritty of whether and how that behavior affects another person, which admittedly is society's prevailing definition. But largely, homosexuality does NOT negatively affect anyone else directly, whereas being abusive and violent does.

Sure, but that's not the same as having the role model at home.

<shrug> Each family is different. That kind of situation is infinitely more desirable than having a male/female parents who are neglectful and abusive. But by itself, there is nothing to indicate that same-sex parents cannot raise children as well as different-sex parents.

 

[Mooseman]

But largely, homosexuality does NOT negatively affect anyone else directly, whereas being abusive and violent does.

Once again you are assigning a qualitative judgment to a behavior that is not necessarily true.....
I think there is a lot of opinion that says it does negatively affect others.....
Also, can't a person be violent and abusive only while being totally alone? Are they no longer abusive or violent when alone and not affecting others?

 

[Spiderman]

How does being homosexual negatively affect others?

And yes, one can be abusive and be alone - which is fine - but I have a feeling that's not what EB was talking about...

 

[turgy22]

Oversoul - you are arguing legal. For the most part, I agree with you on a legal standpoint. Government should stay out of it completely. This is not an issue to be addressed by law.
...
I guess what I'm saying is that I completely agree with you from a legal standpoint, but I don't believe that ultimately this is a question about legality.

This entire topic is a legal discussion and I think everyone's arguments have been about legality, not morality. That's why the topic refers to the California Supreme Court and not a religious body.

But that goes both ways also. The laws should not force schools to teach that same-sex marriages are correct.

Whoa! Who said anything about schools teaching children about same-sex marriages? In fact who said anything about any (public) school teaching any children about any moral issues? Again, this argument is about human rights and equality, not morality.

As for gender vs sex, you are arguing semantics and that may be the "technical" difference assigned the two words, but I would still argue that they are the same and that saying the two can be different for a given individual is saying that God messed up. God certainly allows us to have challenges and things we need to overcome in life.

Why do you conclude that if someone's sexuality lies outside of a societal norm that God messed up? Wouldn't it make more sense to say that God created people differently on purpose? And since we're all created in God's image and likeness, then maybe God is just a little bi-curious?

Regardless of whether you agree with me, however, if I am correct than we will eventually come to realize that a breakdown in societal values of what constitutes family will eventually lead to a breakdown in society itself.

What defines a breakdown in society? My impression is that if society changes in such a way that makes you uncomfortable, you would consider that "breaking down". And what happens after society breaks down? Chaos? Anarchy? Rapture?

 

[Mooseman]

How does being homosexual negatively affect others?

Why are you asking me, I never said that it did, just that it was an opinion of some people..... I would imagine that if you believed it was unacceptable behavior and thus should not be condoned by the society you live in, you would believe there is a "negative" affect on their family, friends, children.....etc
If EB teaches his children the aforementioned behavior is wrong and then have the government, schools, blah blah say that is acceptable, he would see a negative affect.

Change homosexual behavior with promiscuous behavior, just for the sake of comparing two behaviors.....

 

[Killer Joe]

but I know a few folks who automatically assume homosexuality IS promiscuous behavior (and/or perverted).

Too lazy to read through it all but has it been mentioned somewhere that church and state should be seperate? If so, then why is gay marraige a 'bad thing'? From a government point of view (less the religious point of view) where's the need for regulation?

 

[Oversoul]

Oversoul - you are arguing legal. For the most part, I agree with you on a legal standpoint. Government should stay out of it completely. This is not an issue to be addressed by law.

But that goes both ways also. The laws should not force schools to teach that same-sex marriages are correct. As long as I teach my children that we have to respect another person's right to do what they want, I shouldn't be chastised for telling them that such behavior is incorrect. Just like I teach my children not to smoke, but I also teach them not to hate people who do.

Who said anything about schools being forced to teach about same-sex marriages or that any sort of marriage is "correct." Is this actually happening somewhere? And yes, I fully respect your right to tell your children that homosexuality is "incorrect" or whatever. Furthermore, I'd have a problem with anyone wanting to take that right away.

As for gender vs sex, you are arguing semantics and that may be the "technical" difference assigned the two words, but I would still argue that they are the same and that saying the two can be different for a given individual is saying that God messed up. God certainly allows us to have challenges and things we need to overcome in life.

It's semantic, but it's important. Like I already mentioned, not everyone fits comfortably into the male category or the female category. Sometimes it's something relatively mild. We looked at an interesting case in one of my biology classes in which an adult female runner failed a cheek swab test because it said she had a Y chromosome. The parties regulating the competition couldn't figure out why she was yielding this result, and advised her to fake an injury to get out of the competition. She didn't do it and was disqualified. It turned out that she really was XY. With androgen insensitivity (caused by a mutation on hormonal receptors), the developing male embryo didn't get the changes it needed to become fully male. The testes remained small and stayed in the abdomen. There was a vagina, but no uterus or other female organs.

It's somewhat rare, but not incredibly so. And while I'm sure it's troubling, in cases like that one the affected person seems outwardly female and is generally able to identify as female. But there are some more serious conditions. Babies born with underdeveloped male and female genitalia, and things of that nature. You can write it off as a "challenge" for those poor people if you like, but I do think it illustrates my point that gender roles can't always be straightforward.

And yes, my argument is based on some religious postulates, so if you don't accept those postulates, then you are free to not accept the conclusion. Personally, I think that there are a lot more people who claim to be atheist than that actually are, but whatever.

Now, why do you think they'd lie about something like that? I know it's a bit OT, but I'm curious.

I guess what I'm saying is that I completely agree with you from a legal standpoint, but I don't believe that ultimately this is a question about legality.

Then what is it a question of?

 

[DarthFerret]

but I know a few folks who automatically assume homosexuality IS promiscuous behavior (and/or perverted).

Too lazy to read through it all but has it been mentioned somewhere that church and state should be seperate? If so, then why is gay marraige a 'bad thing'? From a government point of view (less the religious point of view) where's the need for regulation?

I understand and am mostly the same way (too lazy to read it all).

There is no law stating that the Church and the State are seperate. While I agree that one should not interfere with the other, it is virtually impossible to seperate the two completly. I give to you the example of Barak Hussein Obama and Jereimiah Wright (Sp?). The "Reverend" Jesse Jackson, etc...

Moose pretty much hit the nail on the head with me. I personally and morally feel that homosexuality is wrong (I still believe they are people though and try to treat them as I would anyone). I do not want my kids to be raised to think it is sanctioned by any entity that a person should respect. (I think G'vmt should be respected, even if it isn't now) I also do not want my kids to be raised that smoking marijuana is correct. Or that any other activity that is currently being deemed illegal is correct. Or that illegal immigration is correct. That would be the main argument for how it can affect a society. If I had more time I would go into it more. May stop by later tommorrow and jot a few more points down.