Are gays "born gay"?

Watermark said:
Gay marriage will not harm "the institution of marriage". Gay's are not some corrupt leper. Whenever they touch marriage, it does not shrivel and die because two men love each other.
Click to expand...

The institution becomes pointless, at its entire purpose is male-female union for the creation of a family. Not that government involvement hasn't already led it greatly in the direction of irrelevancy--it seems entirely clear that the longer marriage remains a civil issue, the less and less likely it will survive, and same-sex marriage is the next step in government making it unsurvivable.
 
Threedee said:
The institution becomes pointless, at its entire purpose is male-female union for the creation of a family. Not that government involvement hasn't already led it greatly in the direction of irrelevancy--it seems entirely clear that the longer marriage remains a civil issue, the less and less likely it will survive, and same-sex marriage is the next step in government making it unsurvivable.
Click to expand...

Apperantly Marraige is already unsurvivable to over 50% of those who do get married.
 
DigitalDave said:
Apperantly Marraige is already unsurvivable to over 50% of those who do get married.
Click to expand...
This is a misleading statistic. Approximately 70% of FIRST marriages survive. Those who have divorced before trend that down because when they get remarried they are far more likely to turn to divorce again.
 
DigitalDave said:
http://sno.syr.edu/docs/RoselliEndocrin2003.pdf

There, now you've got a study that shows it..
Click to expand...
Yes, a study on sheep:
Sheep are one of few animal models in which natural variations in male sexual preferences have been studied experimentally. Approximately 8% of rams exhibit sexual preferences for male partners (male-oriented rams) in contrast to most rams, which prefer female partners (female-oriented rams). We identified a cell group within the MPOA/AH of agematched adult sheep that was significantly larger in adult rams than in ewes. This cell group was labeled the ovine sexually dimorphic nucleus (oSDN). In addition to a sex difference, we found that the volume of the oSDN was two times greater in female-oriented rams than in maleoriented rams. The dense cluster of neurons that comprise the oSDN express cytochrome P450 aromatase. Aromatase mRNA levels in oSDN were significantly greater in female-oriented rams than in ewes, while male-oriented rams exhibited intermediate levels of expression. Since the MPOA/AH is known to control the expression of male sexual behaviors, these results suggest that naturally occurring variations in sexual partner preferences may be related to differences in brain anatomy and capacity for estrogen synthesis.
Click to expand...
However, we are discussing humans.
 
Southern Man said:
Then according to you, the American legal process is lame.

The claimant can have supporters. I am not required to be one of them.
Click to expand...
This isn't the legal process. This is a forum. Ideas can be investigated by all interested parties without regard to the "claimant".

If you were truly interested in the conversation rather than assuming you have all the answers you would look up the information. There is no use trying to "teach" somebody who has no curiosity.
 
Damocles said:
This isn't the legal process. This is a forum. Ideas can be investigated by all interested parties without regard to the "claimant".

If you were truly interested in the conversation rather than assuming you have all the answers you would look up the information. There is no use trying to "teach" somebody who has no curiosity.
Click to expand...

But Damo that is pretty much how the organized Christian religion works.
 
Southern Man said:
Then according to you, the American legal process is lame.

The claimant can have supporters. I am not required to be one of them.
Click to expand...

No. You're lame. You could have argued correlations, but didn't. You're even lamer for poo-pooing any further discussion in order to 'win'.

Just curious, did you post anything legitimate or scientific (from a recognized journal and NOT the bible?) proving your case - aside form an op-ed that was supposed to prove something you wouldn't confirm when asked.
 
And what, SM is with your fixation with homosexuals all about? Serious question. I find it weird.
 
Southern Man said:
It is a well known fact that gay men lead shorther lives than straight ones, due to their unhealty lifestyle.
Click to expand...
It's a well known fact that smokers lead shorter lives than non smokers. Are you advocating the icriminalization of smoking. Hell it is well known that fat people have shorter lives than thin. Do we make fried chicken and pie illegal?
 
Last edited:
Southern Man said:
I think that you're completely off base here with your analogies. A better analogy was sugested earlier: "you wouldn't give a driver's license to a blind man". Your analogies are silly, because they attempt to relate unrelated issues.
Click to expand...
No a better analogy would be that heterosexual couples that engage in S&M and BDSM behavior are "not normal" Hell they are down right out of the mainstream. I am not talking about the occasional tying up the old lady with a tie. I am talking St Andrews Cross in the extra room, ball gags, leather cuffs, paddles, whips, floggers canes. That is WAY outta the norm. So should breeders who tie eachother up and hurt one another be kept from marriage?
 
I was in this for a bit then got out and then read the whole debate and added a little to the end. But after reading the entire thread to this point, Damo won the debate hands down. SM's whole argument was based on deviant behavior but there are LOTS of behaviors that deviate from the norm, which is all deviant means, that are not illegal and do not proscribe people from marrying including my example of BDSM and S&M behavior which are deviant but don't keep people from being married. If child bearing is what gives breeders the right to marry then being a member of the press should be the only thing that protects your speech. SM just admit, you don't want queers having the same licence as you cause it makes you feel icky and go on about your business.
 
Heck in the pentecostal church I was raised any sexual position except the missionary one was sinful and perverted. And if I recall correctly that was official church doctrine when Christians civilized the heathens on HI.


I am just a big pervert then :D
 
Damocles said:
This isn't the legal process. This is a forum. Ideas can be investigated by all interested parties without regard to the "claimant".

If you were truly interested in the conversation rather than assuming you have all the answers you would look up the information. There is no use trying to "teach" somebody who has no curiosity.
Click to expand...
It is a debate, and I have no need to do the claimant's work for him. To do so would invite trolling.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top