<p>Hanna - “Wouldn’t you have been looking at Princess Leia?”</p>
<p>For me it would have to be that lovely English woman we knew in Athens, Greece, who was married to a greek man back in the mid-1950’s, for whom I ran away from home to be with. I believe I was five at the time. Don’t ask me how I got to her home, but I did! “On love’s light wings did I o’erperch these walls…” : ) Then there was Marylin Monroe…</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Nobody’s forcing you to do anything, unless you work for the State of Masschusetts signing marriage licenses. You can refuse to acknowledge gay people’s very existence if you want, just as you can refuse to acknowledge interracial marriages. You can decide which marriages do and do not deserve the golani89 stamp of approval. You can cut them off socially, you can spit at their feet, you can tell them they’re wrong in any nonviolent way you choose. We’re talking about what the GOVERNMENT ought to do. The government’s position need not be shared by every citizen.</p>
<p>brand - It is wrong at this point to compare race (which one can do nothing about) to lifestyle choice – and there is no conclusive evidence that one does not choose but merely IS homosexual.</p>
<p>^^^^^^^^thank you!</p>
<p>Hanna - Last I heard the government was MADE UP of citizens. And citizens make our laws (though one could argue about just how much a citizen some of our law makers are!).</p>
<p>It’s so simple. Don’t like gay marriage?</p>
<p>Don’t have one.</p>
<p>Beats me why this is such a big, hairy deal.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That assumes that one believes in “nurture” - that one chooses to be gay. As you’ve said, I don’t believe the evidence is conclusive either way. By your very statement, you imply that race cannot be controlled while sexuality can. I disagree. </p>
<p>The fact remains that, just as with women and black people before, society intends to refuse rights to a certain group of people for merely being who they are - it’s just the way it is. Gay people shouldn’t be able to marry. </p>
<p>It’s just the way it is - black people shouldn’t be able to vote.</p>
<p>It’s just the way it is - women shouldn’t own property or receive an education.</p>
<p>I sense an underlying theme here. Does anyone care to answer my previous question:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>“For me it would have to be that lovely English woman we knew in Athens, Greece, who was married to a greek man back in the mid-1950’s, for whom I ran away from home to be with. I believe I was five at the time. Don’t ask me how I got to her home, but I did! “On love’s light wings did I o’erperch these walls…” : ) Then there was Marylin Monroe…”</p>
<p>That should have been written better. I ran away for HER not for HIM!!
lol</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Well, then, let’s compare religion. There’s no question that religion is not genetic. If the government said we’re only going to grant marriage benefits to Christians, because the non-Christian marriages don’t lead to as many children and thus aren’t nearly as good for society, would that be just and fair? Leaving out the Constitutional questions, would that be good policy? After all, Jews and Hindus could just get baptized and become Christians if they want to get married – people convert from one religion to another every day.</p>
<p>That’s laughable, right? Because even if we didn’t have a First Amendment, we wouldn’t want the government to be pressuring people to switch religions. Even though you supposedly can change, it’s an utterly fundamental part of who you are. This is something that’s so personal, the government shouldn’t even ASK people to change. And many people, no matter how hard they tried, could never stop believing in their own religion, even though it’s theoretically possible. They’ll be tortured and die rather than pretend to switch.</p>
<p>Why is this so different? Even if sexual orientation were just as malleable as religion, WHY should they be pressured to deny it or to change?</p>
<p>brand - Women and blacks should have never been discriminated against.</p>
<p>When you show me CONCLUSIVELY that homosexuals cannot be anything but, I will say okay, fine, let them be. But, I will still say I do not approve of marriage for them because it is antithetical to a system that has been in place from the dawn of civilization – flawed though it be. I do not support iconoclasm in this case.</p>
<p>Hanna - Can’t discuss this now, but an interesting point nonetheless. Perhaps we can pick it up on monday…</p>
<p>Leanid, nothing can ever be proven CONCLUSIVELY, as you shout. Gravity? - still just a theory, officially. But the evidence that homosexuality is innate, not “chosen”, is overwhelming to anyone who has reviewed the data with anything even approaching an unbiased view. No study has demonstrated anything but random distribution of homosexuality throughout society - a fact which has apparently held true throughout the ages. Two brothers - one gay, one straight. Kids of gay parents - as likely to be straight as the children of straght parents. All of the “This causes homosexuality” theories have been factually disproven, long ago. There’s no environmental factor which can explain the distribution of gays in society any more than environmental factors can explain the distribtion of lefties. It’s just a fact of the human condition - most swing this way, a smaller group swings that way. It’s always been that way, and probably always will be.</p>
<p>I’m glad that you have admitted that your take on this subject is motivated by your “disgust” at homosexuality. As I mentioned before, I find any kind of sexual activity other than the things I personally like to engage in to be “icky” - and that includes homosexual activity of all stripes. But I don’t consider that to be a valid basis for denying a group of people rational treatment under the laws of our nation or community when no other reason appears to exist to do so.</p>
<p>If I did, I’d start with the makers and consumers of hip hop music.</p>
<p>Hanna, I love you. :D</p>
<p>If you look at gay marriage in a vacuum, it does seem absurd to worry about it. OTOH, if you see it as a trend away from family values (marriage, monogamy, parental control of religion and what their children learn in school), then gay marriage is another piece of this trend. If marriage means absolutely anything you want it to mean, then it means nothing. It is not government-recognized dating; it’s about making stable family units. There are people who want the return of covenant marriage, one man, one woman - it is their opinion that those things are best for society as a whole. </p>
<p>I hold many of those values as well. I’m a strong enough believer in marriage that I want the return of covenant marriage; I think that divorce is horrible and that people get into and out of marriages without enough thought. I just come out differently than my friends in the application of those values; I think they are underscored, not undermined, by gay marriage.</p>
<p>Yes, Leanid, gov’t is made up of citizens, but we are a republic, not a democracy. Furthermore, we have a government, not a girl’s lunch table where everyone must agree. Part of ANY government is that it does stuff that all of its citizens don’t agree with; if all citizens did agree with its actions and would so act themselves, there would scarcely be a need for government. We vote and we assign people to make our laws because we recognize that we simply cannot have a consensus on everything. Government is not the highest form of citizens; it is not the lowest form of humanity, either. It is simply a mechanism to allow us to live together as civilised people.</p>
<p>Actually, Kluge… there are environmental factors that influence whether or not someone is gay. Specifically, birth order and the numbers of brothers (full or half, if same mother) that one has does increase one’s chances of being gay. The theory is that, once a woman bears a male child, her body will react differently do the next male child. The hormone bath influences brain development (hence the different neurological reactions in gays and straights). </p>
<p>Also, there is an assymetrical distribution of gays w/r/t intelligence; gay men tend to be smarter than straight men, on the average. </p>
<p>In my (not humble) opinion, this is all evidence that homosexuality is hardwired into one’s brain. That doesn’t change the fact that there are environmental factors which change one’s chance of being gay. Sorry for th analogy, but a mother who drinks is an environmental factor that will change the development of her baby, but those developmental changes cannot be reversed because they are environmental in nature.</p>
<p>Enforcing “stable family units” will go over just as well as our spread of democracy.</p>
<p>Just can’t force people to do things they don’t want to do. Unless you torture them…and then, maybe.</p>
<p>Ariesathena - you’re right; I should have said “post-birth” environmental factors. Some research does tend to support the theory that there is a partial correspondence of homosexuality with in utero environmental factors. But it’s a weak correspondence and I’m not sure that it will hold up under further study, to be honest. And it doesn’t change the fact that “they’re born that way” in any event.</p>
<p>As to the “gay men are smarter” theory— pphhhhtttt! I refuse to believe it. Here’s my theory: Dumb gay guys are just too stupid to understand that they’re gay - they think that all straight guys are like that. So they check the “straight” box and bring down our curve!</p>
<p>Whattyathink? ;)</p>
<p>lol@ kluge.</p>
<p>I am not sure if they are on average smarter; but many of them become aware that they are different and their difference wouldn’t be well-received by peers if they know about it. That probably forces them to be smart about how to hide their orientation. Most of my gay friends didn’t participate team sports when they were young. I think some of it has to do with their anxiety of being exposed in such social settings. Instead of playing sports, they divert their energy to things like art or academics. Maybe that’s why they appear to be smarter. That’s just my rough speculation.</p>
<p>One thing I do know is gay men tend to be more artsy/creative on average. There are disproportionally large number of them in the fashion, design, and entertainment industry.</p>
<p>LOL! Or, gay men act like women and are therefore smarter. 
</p>
<p>I’ll try to dig up the basis of that stat - not sure if it was IQ or educational achievement or what-have-you. I would not be surprised if it were an odd result of different brain wiring, albiet a good result.</p>
<p>Add Hanna to the must read posters- please get together with mini and FountainSiren and get the book published.</p>