Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire The Coming Scrap Over Gay Marriage

The solution is simple. People just won't accept it.

The government has no business handling marriage, providing benefits to married people, or handling the dissolution of marriage. That's it.

Their having a hand in these issues has nothing to do with the abandonment of children. Nothing.



Travis

Prison sex is about dominance not gayness. If I'm on a ship for 20 years I still wouldn't want a dude. That's just me I guess. By the way, my remark was not intended to be glib. I just don't know any straight guys who would "switch hit". Maybe there are some.

Jim, at any given time there are about 150,000 children in the Foster Care systems that are eligible for adoption. Foster kids often suffer from the same childhood cruelties and discrimination you mentioned, so the question become,

What is the least bad option?
Leave these kids in Foster Care, or allow them to be adopted by homosexual couples?

There should be no supporting of anybody. Deadbeat or otherwise. Good people, bad people. Doesn't matter. Should not involve my tax money.


Travis

Snot - while I will agree that I cannot find a single climatologist working on finding a "gay gene", there has been a LOT of ongoing research on this subject since around 1900. For instance, this excerpt from an article by the council of responsible genetics...DO STUDIES SUPPORT THE EXISTENCE OF A GAY GENE?

The most frequently cited study was conducted by molecular biologists at the National Institutes of Health under the direction of Dean Hamer. This study is currently under investigation by the federal Office of Research Integrity for possible scientific misconduct, because one of the study collaborators alleges that Hamer suppressed data that would have reduced the statistical significance of the reported results.

Hamer�s group examined DNA samples from self-identified gay men and other gay male family members. The researchers claim they have found a DNA segment, called a "marker," on the X chromosome, the chromosome men inherit only from their mother and not from their father. They say that most, though not all, gay men within a family share such a marker. (In a more recent study, they conclude that lesbian sisters do not share this marker.) They now hope that by defining this marker more closely, they will be able to identify a "gene for gayness" on the X chromosome.

One of the problems with their approach is that Hamer and his colleagues did not feel it necessary to check whether any of the straight men in these families share the marker in question. If even only a few of them do, it calls into question what the gene or the self-identification signifies. More recently, Hamer has tested this out, and the results do not change his interpretation.

But even more significant for Hamer�s studies is the definition of who is gay. Hamer uses the extremely conservative estimate of two percent for the prevalence of homosexuality among American men. Increasing this value to the usually accepted values of five to ten percent reduces or even eliminates the statistical significance of his results. The reason Hamer gives for his unusually low estimate is that he wants to work only with "real" gay men, that is, men who have essentially never veered from their preference for men in their sexual fantasies or activities. His definition does not take into account the large population of men who have sexual relations with men, but who do not identify as gay, or men who have had sexual relationships or marriages with women, or have fathered children, but now do identify as gay. If research on sexual orientation does not consider this diversity of sexual identities, the social relevance of this research is limited.

Hamer�s results remain controversial. An independent study of gay siblings did not reproduce his results, though the Hamer group now reports a second study which supports the role of a gene on the X chromosome in male homosexuality. But none of the results, including Hamer�s, support the claim that any single gene can determine sexual orientation.

Another study claiming that there is a connection between homosexuality and biology, by the neurophysiologist Simon LeVay, claims that a specific structure in the brain is smaller in gay than in straight men. The size of this structure in gay men, he claims, is more like that seen in heterosexual women � though in fact, he has no evidence regarding the sexual orientation of the women whose brains he examined. All of LeVay�s observations were made on the brains of cadavers, and his evidence about the sexual orientation and practices of the people in life is entirely circumstantial. Furthermore, the "gay men" all died of AIDS, which is known sometimes to affect brain structures. Another criticism of this study is that in some of LeVay�s "gay" samples, the structure was larger than in the "straight" ones, so that upon inspection, there is no basis for deciding whether a given person in life had been "gay" or "straight."

That position has NOTHING to do with conservatism. That is the classical libertarian view, which, like classical communism, never comes to pass, as human nature precludes it.

I wouldn't doubt that the same could be said for pedophiles, "Situational Pedophiles."

Ok, TAK. Justify why my tax money should go toward the state's involvement in granting and dissolving marriage. I'm not talking about small claims court. I'm not talking about civil court. I'm talking about marriage.


Travis

Benchman, yes, some interesting stuff. If there is a male, gay gene, a single variation on the X chromosome is the wrong place to look. Such a variation would be self correcting in one or two generations. A surprising number of our characteristics, including things as simple as hair color and eye color are actually polygenic, meaning they are controlled by more then one gene. More recent studies done on half sibling indicate there is a possible biological link to male homosexuality, but it's a recessive gene carried by the mothers, which could explain why this possible variation has not yet self corrected.

There IS no situation that would make me homosexual. Period

That is TOO easy.

First, it is the RIGHT thing to do. Secondly, promoting marriage and stable nuclear families has a mountain of peer-reviewed science stating that the two are essential for a stable society, and, without which, all indicators for society at large, get worse. When this happens, and fedgov has to be "daddy" EVERYBODY'S taxes go up.

No, just as a secular baker has no obligation to bake something outside of his area of expertise. Or for that matter a butcher has no obligation to provide kosher/halal meats.

antelope sniper,

This is a good point you make. When I was growing up (well over 65 years ago) I lived, as the crow flies, about 1/4 mile from what was then known as a "children's shelter". The children living there went to the same public school as I did. My memory tells me they were never completely integrated into the other groups of children at the school. Part of this was due to the fact they had to go directly back to the "shelter" at the end of the school day. They could not elect to stay away from their "home" in order to play with or participate with other children in sports at the end of the school day or on week-ends.

In some ways it was similar to public school and separate school attendees. Until I entered high school I had little to do with separate schoolers (read Catholics). By then the only way we found out about religious affiliation was because we were meeting a whole new group of students of our own age who we previously hadn't run across. If the question came up i.e. "where do you come from, are you new around here?" then we might learn they were locals who went to another school system.

While malice didn't have anything to do with how the "shelter" children were treated I can't believe there wouldn't be similar treatment of children of same sex parents. Children are usually aware of far more than most parents want to admit to.

I am ready to admit that I am not smart enough to have a solution to social problems of this sort. I guess if I was then I would have been earning the big bucks during my working life.(smile)

Jim

DD, as far as I know your term does not currently exist in any sex research lexicon, situational homsexuality does though. My recollection of the research is that some heterosexuals will engage in homosexual "behavior" in sitiatuions where opposite sex partners are not avaialble for long periods of time. Those that do engage in homosexual behavior still consider themsevles to be heterosexual. Most often this is observed in gender segregated situtations like prisons and the military. I can't imagine any situations where adults could find themselves without access to other adults and be with just childeren for long periods of time. Does this make sense?

Wow, you are stupid.

Another [bleep] liberal.


Travis

If it is govt's role to protect our rights, then it means that it is govt's role to arbitrate conflicts.

If it is govt's role to arbitrate conflicts, then it is govt's role to keep the rules of engagement.

So, the question boils down to, if you and your hootchie momma break up, is it a good idea to have a legal framework for resolving differences or should you just shoot the beotch?

If you think there should be a legal framework, then the govt should be in the business of making the rules concerning the transaction.

Therefore, if [bleep] is found to be damaging to members of society or society at large (and it has), then it is within our right to ban [bleep] unions or at least withhold recognition.

AWESOME arguement....'cause you ain't got one.

So, you like having lots of little [bleep] bastids? Maybe let the queers raise 'em? That oughta work out well, they'd already have the prison sex thing worked out early on.

You make too much sense. You're a libtard in MT, BTW.