Obama chooses Rick Warren

[bradclark1]

Originally Posted by Frame57

I spend my time saving lives in Biomedical engineering, perhaps you should hang at the mall while I continue to observe the universe with an IQ perhaps 75 points above yours....

Now thats a laugh. Get out of the lab Mr. Booksmart and get down to the mall and observe people and adjust your 19th century prejudices. Use your eyes and common sense if thats at all possible.
Read about halfway down page 11 about your science.
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&...esult#PPA11,M1

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by Frame57

Gimme a break. because i make these obsevations of which i am qualified to having higher education in Anatomy, Physiology and Biology, you say sheltered? Nonsense, the scientific community not 30 years agreed with my theory on thea matter. You cannot escape facts. The debate over the hormone issue is not one taken at birth. Children do not produce certain hormones on a regular basis until adolenscence has arrived. There is no scientific proof "Gays" are born that way. Hormone imbalances are not present in every Gay person either. A woman who has higher testosterone is more likely just to be more active sexually with no particular inclination toward lesbianism. Doctors will sometimes prescribe testosterone to women who have lost their libido. I spend my time saving lives in Biomedical engineering, perhaps you should hang at the mall while I continue to observe the universe with an IQ perhaps 75 points above yours....

You may want to catch up on some current research there, Doc:

But, in October, California researchers studying fetal development identified 54 genes that play a role in the expression of sex -- before hormones are ever released.


"This refutes the idea that hormones are the only story in sexual differentiation of the brain. That has been the dogma in the field for 30 years," said Dr. Eric Vilain, an assistant professor of human genetics and urology at the David Geffen School of Medicine at the University of California at Los Angeles, who led the research.

http://www.boston.com/news/science/a...homosexuality/

[bradclark1]

Looks like those 75 points aren't doing much good.

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by Mikhayl

So, homosexuals would have to be treated like worst sh!t than blacks were back then, then some of them could die, and then maybe they would have the right to marry ? Ok I'm again being sarcastic but I had a hard time reading your post fully after that line.

As for the born as is/choice thing, it's a non issue IMO, even if it were proven that all homosexuals are so by choice. You just can't brag about freedom and deny rights to millions of people because they chose not to live like the majority.

No, they do not need to be treated like black America for me to see this as a civil rights issue. My what I'm saying is the gay community is likening this "rights violation" for marriage to the basic rights black America clawed to achieve. To all, is marriage a right or just an institution created by religion? You know, the religious notion that marriage should be between a man and women. It all gets very complicated:hmm:

[August]

Personally i don't care what they do as long as it doesn't cost me the taxpayer any additional money.

[Frame57]

I found the study interesting but this has been in debate for years. First of all plaese re-read the article and note that The UCLA study suggested that children who were confused about their sexuality had an iclination to grow up to be gay. A child can become "un-confused" by proper instruction about their bodies.

Dr. Pillard also noted that if homosexuality were totally genetic then the figures would be 100% and they are not in his study.

The 91 autopsy revealed hypothalamus irregularities in homosexual me who died of AIDS, but it is determined that the brain anomaly id due to the disease rather than the homosexual behavior. Which I would agree on.

On thing that people fail to realize is that brain and other body chemistry can and does change from exogenous activity or behavior. The flight or fight syndrome is a classic example of this, thusly releasing adrenaline in the body. This is why drug addicts often are found with atrophied adrenals glands during autopsies. They have overburdened the gland to failure. Sexual behavior also causes many changes in the body. If you or I took a complete blood panel prior to sexual activity and then during our hormone counts would be off the charts. So for a male to take on a feminine mind set will in no doubt have a different hormone profile from a masculine male. But my take on it is that the changes occur after the fact and remain permanent.

Not be offensive here but a Colo-rectal surgeon who is a colleague discussed the dangers of anal sex. The continuous activity leads to a weakened rectum and i will try to find a UCSF study on this to reference for you. This weakened rectum results in what is called a rectal prolapse where the inner parts of the rectum is protruding out of the anus. This is serious and requires immediate surgey to correct. The point is that 99% of people who get this engage in anal sex. So it becomes clear to the scientific mind that this is not a healthy practice to engage in.

I am aware of the studies ongoing but nothing yet has been proven scientifically, you are dealing with statistics in these matters. It is not my intention to offend anyone but to show that there is clear and reasonble alternatives as to why some just do not accept what people think because they say so.

[Sailor Steve]

In the last discussion on gay marriage I came out firmly on the side of freedom. Period. I haven't changed that opinion, but I was discussing this with a friend who has a background in Anthropology, Archeology and History, and I thought his observations were worth commenting on.

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

To all, is marriage a right or just an institution created by religion? You know, the religious notion that marriage should be between a man and women. It all gets very complicated:hmm:

I think it's a right, but we all know what I think, so I'm going to talk about what my friend thinks. He doesn't believe marriage is a right, nor does he believe marriage is religious in nature.

His observation was that the Greeks, and some other ancient groups, believed that the only true love could happen between members of the same sex, because only they could understand each other. In his opinion, those cultures invented marriage as a social contract between a man and a woman for the purpose of establishing a family unit for the purpose of raising children. Marriage didn't really become a religious function until the middle ages, when the Catholic Church came to the conclusion that control could be exerted over the civil institutions by getting religion into the marriage game.

While in the original thread I argued against the right of a society or community to dictate law according to arbitrary standards, my friend challenged that opinion on the basis that all licenses - from plumbers to drivers to electricians - are awarded by the state according to set standards, and this includes marriage licenses.

I still stand by my original beliefs, but I thought his ideas were worth sharing.

As far as benefits go, in my opinion the purpose of benefits for spouses is to guarantee the safety of families if the breadwinner can no longer supply the bread. But aren't benefits a function of the heads of the company awarding them, and not state interference?

@ Frame57: a lot of your observations are worth considering, but "I'm smarter than you!" is hardly going to get people to consider your opinions. Just the opposite, I'd say. And, do medical problems and whether people are born that way or choose to be that way really have anything to do with rights and liberty. I've heard doctors back up their opinion that motorcycle riders should be forced to wear helmets on the grounds that they've had to treat a lot of head injuries. I didn't swallow that one either.

[baggygreen]

I normally like to think i'm rational, level-headed, and open-minded.

I can understand in many respects why gay couples should be allowed civil unions. But for reasons I can't explain, i hate the notion.

I'm all for personal freedoms when they don't impinge on others, but I still hate the idea of gay marriage.

I have a number of gay and lesbian friends, but I still hate gay marriage.

I think my main issues are as follows, and I'll do my best to explain it, but I can't guarantee it'll come out clearly. (no pun intended)

1: Children. Now I know not all married couples have kids, but the majority do. I'm a firm believer that 2 gay men or 2 lesbian women cannot raise children in as.. fulfilling a manner as a straight couple. Now yes I know there are exceptions to every rule. But generally speaking, a straight couple provides 2 completely different approaches to life, the universe, and everything. Again, a generalisation so don't jump on me, but men and women the world over share common traits - take away that element in familial life and a child is to an extent deprived of the experiences and information that would otherwise be on offer. No man can replace a woman, nor can a woman ever replace a man, our views on the world are unavoidably altered to some extent by our chromosomes.

For instance, no matter how much a son may trust and love his mother, he would never go to her for guidance after discovering the joys of women. Who would he turn to in a gay marriage - mum, or mum? Same applies for girls, when they hit puberty, how comfortable would they be approaching dad or daddy for advice, reassurance, etc?

Forgive me for the rather sweeping statements, its something I find difficult to explain. I've done the best I can though.

[Frame57]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

In the last discussion on gay marriage I came out firmly on the side of freedom. Period. I haven't changed that opinion, but I was discussing this with a friend who has a background in Anthropology, Archeology and History, and I thought his observations were worth commenting on.

I think it's a right, but we all know what I think, so I'm going to talk about what my friend thinks. He doesn't believe marriage is a right, nor does he believe marriage is religious in nature.

His observation was that the Greeks, and some other ancient groups, believed that the only true love could happen between members of the same sex, because only they could understand each other. In his opinion, those cultures invented marriage as a social contract between a man and a woman for the purpose of establishing a family unit for the purpose of raising children. Marriage didn't really become a religious function until the middle ages, when the Catholic Church came to the conclusion that control could be exerted over the civil institutions by getting religion into the marriage game.

While in the original thread I argued against the right of a society or community to dictate law according to arbitrary standards, my friend challenged that opinion on the basis that all licenses - from plumbers to drivers to electricians - are awarded by the state according to set standards, and this includes marriage licenses.

I still stand by my original beliefs, but I thought his ideas were worth sharing.

As far as benefits go, in my opinion the purpose of benefits for spouses is to guarantee the safety of families if the breadwinner can no longer supply the bread. But aren't benefits a function of the heads of the company awarding them, and not state interference?

@ Frame57: a lot of your observations are worth considering, but "I'm smarter than you!" is hardly going to get people to consider your opinions. Just the opposite, I'd say. And, do medical problems and whether people are born that way or choose to be that way really have anything to do with rights and liberty. I've heard doctors back up their opinion that motorcycle riders should be forced to wear helmets on the grounds that they've had to treat a lot of head injuries. I didn't swallow that one either.

Steve, it is when I make a case for someting using illustartion and some nitwit tells me to go the mall for education i feel i need to put them in their place...

[Frame57]

Originally Posted by Mikhayl

Not to be offensive, but what has anal sex to do with gay marriage ?

And to reiterate, whether it's natural or a choice is irrelevant, even if it were a choice what does that change ?

The reference regarding the prolapse that happens is indicative that the practice is not in the natural order of things. Vaginas do not prolapse from having intercourse. Hence, i do not believe it to be a normal sexual practice. Thread drifted-sorry...

[Frame57]

Originally Posted by baggygreen

I normally like to think i'm rational, level-headed, and open-minded.

I can understand in many respects why gay couples should be allowed civil unions. But for reasons I can't explain, i hate the notion.

I'm all for personal freedoms when they don't impinge on others, but I still hate the idea of gay marriage.

I have a number of gay and lesbian friends, but I still hate gay marriage.

I think my main issues are as follows, and I'll do my best to explain it, but I can't guarantee it'll come out clearly. (no pun intended)

1: Children. Now I know not all married couples have kids, but the majority do. I'm a firm believer that 2 gay men or 2 lesbian women cannot raise children in as.. fulfilling a manner as a straight couple. Now yes I know there are exceptions to every rule. But generally speaking, a straight couple provides 2 completely different approaches to life, the universe, and everything. Again, a generalisation so don't jump on me, but men and women the world over share common traits - take away that element in familial life and a child is to an extent deprived of the experiences and information that would otherwise be on offer. No man can replace a woman, nor can a woman ever replace a man, our views on the world are unavoidably altered to some extent by our chromosomes.

For instance, no matter how much a son may trust and love his mother, he would never go to her for guidance after discovering the joys of women. Who would he turn to in a gay marriage - mum, or mum? Same applies for girls, when they hit puberty, how comfortable would they be approaching dad or daddy for advice, reassurance, etc?

Forgive me for the rather sweeping statements, its something I find difficult to explain. I've done the best I can though.

You make some sensible observations. I see in your observations one sterling mechanic and that is "balance". Why apologize for such an observation? You offended no one. Because there are a few who lash out in vile wretched anger and name call because other people have different opinions are simply ignorant and do not know how to have an intelligent debate without having a tantrum.

[baggygreen]

The why, frame, is easy - there are countless examples where there is, for example, only a mother's influence over her youngsters. Same applies for fathers.

One can argue that both a male and female influence isn't needed for a child's development, and argue strongly at that.

Another could argue that 2 mothers or not, that doesnt exclude other male role models such as grandparents, uncles, male friends, etc.

They're but a few counterpoints to what I've raised, and I know there are many others. I'm stating my opinion, and my argument behind that (to the best of my ability) even when I know there are a number of flaws in the argument. It is, at best, weakly put forward.

I think that stems from my thoughts toward it being from a deep, emotional reaction, and as such is inexplicable to others.

[1480]

Just thought I would stir the pot a bit.

SS, observations from his buddy made me raise an eyebrow. The institution of marriage is a social contract to basically retain property. Has nothing to do with feelings. I do not believe there were implications in W2 forms back then.

I can legally perform a marriage. I signed up to be a minister in the ULC. (google it, though the reason I did it is a long story)

There are laws that prohibit marriage between family members. In Illinois, unless there is a doctors note that states one or both parties are sterile, then you have to wait till you are 50 years old to marry as first cousins.


We can take this a couple of ways, is marriage a social contract or a religious obligation or the ever sickening prospect that people do actually find their soul mate?

The gays have a leg up since they can possibly claim two. Yet, the argument was brought up that it might lead to really deviant legal unions, here is my quick argument that holds a lot more water, Judism says there is nothing wrong with 1st cousins marrying, but there is a prohibition on that in Illinois and I KNOW for a fact in Clark county, Nevada. Where is the line drawn. And yes, I do not believe it is a civil rights issue.... I'm ready for the knocks.

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by Mikhayl

Not to be offensive, but what has anal sex to do with gay marriage ?

And to reiterate, whether it's natural or a choice is irrelevant, even if it were a choice what does that change ?

Anal sex is certainly not pertinent to the discussion and mean nothing in the context of the debate.

Good point on the choice/change question when I think about it. Marriage after all is a choice here in America. So, yes, choice of partner does not really play a part in the correct answer to gay marriage I would think.

[bradclark1]

Originally Posted by Frame57

Steve, it is when I make a case for someting using illustartion and some nitwit tells me to go the mall for education i feel i need to put them in their place...

A pity you found the comment nitwitty when it was made seriously. To me someone with your line of thinking isn't seeing whats in front of your face. A lot of gays can be identified just by seeing people walk by. For instance a person walking/moving in a cross sex manner. Mannerisims while communicating, etc. All the grief gays get from the straight community it is beyond belief that people would become gay by choice. I find gay sex personaly revolting and can't imagine someone waking up and say "Hey! I think I'll love and have relations with just other men." voluntarily. I've known enough gays to know it's not a choice thing. So to me for someone that has your line of reasoning that its a choice thing or a disease shows someone who is sheltered from the real world. So take your 75 points to the mall and do some people watching. And also just for your education it's not only gay men that travels the hershey highway.