Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Ok, here's what I was referring to. One of the legal issues involved in the case is whether gays qualify as a "suspect class" which would automatically afford them equal protection under the law. The state is allowed to discriminate when it has good reasons, but to do so against a suspect class requires much stricter reasons. The criteria for a suspect class are: • The group has historically been discriminated against, and/or have been subject to prejudice, hostility, and/or stigma, perhaps due, at least in part, to stereotypes.• The group is a "discrete" and "insular" minority.• They possess an immutable and/or highly visible trait.• They are powerless to protect themselves via the political process.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 302
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Objection. Please don't speculate on Mr. Shabadoo's mental state. Now then, will you clarify your statement as to your knowledge of the meaning and proper use of the phrase in question. We have evide

I let my attorney do the heavy lifting.

so many fallen brothers.

Ok, here's what I was referring to. One of the legal issues involved in the case is whether gays qualify as a "suspect class" which would automatically afford them equal protection under the law. The state is allowed to discriminate when it has good reasons, but to do so against a suspect class requires much stricter reasons. The criteria for a suspect class are: • The group has historically been discriminated against, and/or have been subject to prejudice, hostility, and/or stigma, perhaps due, at least in part, to stereotypes.• The group is a "discrete" and "insular" minority.• They possess an immutable and/or highly visible trait.• They are powerless to protect themselves via the political process.
Yeah, I get it and I am already envisioning a near future where we try to determine what percentage homosexuality is needed to qualify as immutable and it gave me a headache.
Link to post
Share on other sites
His point probably still stands, but what he did is not actually the legal way to perform a marriage in CA. In order to become an actual marriage officiant, you have to apply at the county clerk's office. I know a bunch of people who have done this. The application is a bit more than that web page, which is just to register as an ordained minister, and does not really give you the legal right to officiate a wedding.
Link to post
Share on other sites
There was a new large scale twin study on sexual orientation published in Archives of Sexual Behavior this year: From what I have read about the legal issues surrounding gay marriage, this kind of data is not irrelevant.
Just a little light toilet-side reading in the nautilus household. Is a person's favourite colour genetically determined? If not, is it any easier to just change your mind and willfully prefer mauve to blue?
Link to post
Share on other sites
It's tough to make a really good argument when you're obviously on the wrong side. The only way to really defend the anti-gay-marriage position without resorting to unsound and invalid arguments is to say something like:"Listen, I don't like gay people. They kinda gross me out. My Faith tells me homosexuality is a sin, and even though I've discarded some of the other vestigial notions of morality set forth by the Old Testament, I've decided to hold onto this one because: fags are grodie. Seriously. It makes me uncomfortable and I don't like the idea of some guy teaching my kids and then going home and making out with some other dude. I truly believe nasty stuff like this needs to be kept as far away from me and the people I care about as possible."But, you know, that just wouldn't play very well. So people start from the conclusion "Homosexuality is Wrong" and work backwards, trying to make arguments that strengthen that position."Homosexuality is a choice." Because, you know, if it weren't I'd have no real leg to stand on."Marriage is a sacred institution." Nevermind that, at this point, marriage is basically contract and property law."Civil Unions accomplish the same thing for homosexual couples." Well, separate but equal has an awesome history in this country."Hollywood liberals...." I get it. Nobody gives a fuck what Sean Penn has to say. But: irrelevant.The only way to WIN the argument is to appeal to the worst side of people, hope the people you're talking to already agree with you, or make fallacious arguments and hope nobody took Intro to Logic in college.Wang
/thread
Link to post
Share on other sites
I ordained myself in the universal life church years ago. I even printed out an official document. It was pretty cool to have that power when I was 15 and in high school.I ain't doin' no marriages for the fags though, so BG has nothing to worry about.edit: awesome post by wang, thx for posting mk.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I ain't doin' no marriages for the fags though, so BG has nothing to worry about.
It should be noted that I was NOT attempting to open this thread to making the other f word ok to toss around; I was facetiously quoting a movie in order to mock the social conservatives in the thread.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just a little light toilet-side reading in the nautilus household. Is a person's favourite colour genetically determined? If not, is it any easier to just change your mind and willfully prefer mauve to blue?
Yeah now that we see the criterion is "immutability" we can focus the question a bit. It is certainly not immutable in the strict sense. Unlikely to change, yes. Totally immutable, no. I have a cousin who used to be gay and is now hetero, married, with kids.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah now that we see the criterion is "immutability" we can focus the question a bit. It is certainly not immutable in the strict sense. Unlikely to change, yes. Totally immutable, no. I have a cousin who used to be gay and is now hetero, married, with kids.
Did he (she?) simply decide to straighten up and fly right, or did your cousin-in-law turn him (her? man, the pronoun-game is awkward)?
Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah now that we see the criterion is "immutability" we can focus the question a bit. It is certainly not immutable in the strict sense. Unlikely to change, yes. Totally immutable, no. I have a cousin who used to be gay and is now hetero, married, with kids.
did he go to one of those camps where you re-learn to love the opposite sex?
Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm instantly convinced this will end well for him and his family!
It's been quite a long time now, they have two kids and seem to have a good relationship.
did he go to one of those camps where you re-learn to love the opposite sex?
No religion or funny camps involved. I think what influenced him a lot was seeing his brother have kids. He just decided that was really important for him, and made the decision to change his lifestyle. His wife is aware of his past. I have a another cousin who was straight, married, with kids, etc., and decided he was gay as an adult, and has lived with a man for 20 years now. This kind of story is of course more common. I know that the canonical view explains this as "he was gay all along and just came to terms with it later in life", but I really don't see it that way. Either way, depending on what the criteria are for immutability, it seems like a challenging case to make.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I have a another cousin who was straight, married, with kids, etc., and decided he was gay as an adult, and has lived with a man for 20 years now. This kind of story is of course more common. I know that the canonical view explains this as "he was gay all along and just came to terms with it later in life", but I really don't see it that way. Either way, depending on what the criteria are for immutability, it seems like a challenging case to make.
There was a really interesting study released this year (I think), which was written about in a Sunday NYT Mag article about how all people inherently have excellent "gay-dar", i.e. people are able to correctly determine someone's sexual orientation with a minimal amount of interaction with a very high degree of accuracy--to the tune of an 80-90% rate. This is quite interesting, and convinced me further that some are definitely born gay, which to me, is really obvious if you've had any interaction throughout the course of your life with people who came out as adults who you knew when they were young.As Chris Rock said, "...Everybody in this room got at least a gay cousin. Every last one of you got a gay cousin. You knew he was gay when y'all was kids. You was playing ball, he was jumping rope. He didn't turn gay, he was gay then. He just didn't have nobody to be gay with."This is 100% accurate in my experience. Every person I've known from childhood who eventually came out was a complete non-surprise, and while anecdotal, it seems many share similar experience.The "choosing to be gay" argument, in my eyes stems wholly from either quasi or direct religious moralizing.Also, why would any guy choose to be gay? Dudes are GRODIE, and chicks don't poop!
Link to post
Share on other sites
There was a really interesting study released this year (I think), which was written about in a Sunday NYT Mag article about how all people inherently have excellent "gay-dar", i.e. people are able to correctly determine someone's sexual orientation with a minimal amount of interaction with a very high degree of accuracy--to the tune of an 80-90% rate. This is quite interesting, and convinced me further that some are definitely born gay, which to me, is really obvious if you've had any interaction throughout the course of your life with people who came out as adults who you knew when they were young.As Chris Rock said, "...Everybody in this room got at least a gay cousin. Every last one of you got a gay cousin. You knew he was gay when y'all was kids. You was playing ball, he was jumping rope. He didn't turn gay, he was gay then. He just didn't have nobody to be gay with."This is 100% accurate in my experience. Every person I've known from childhood who eventually came out was a complete non-surprise, and while anecdotal, it seems many share similar experience.The "choosing to be gay" argument, in my eyes stems wholly from either quasi or direct religious moralizing.Also, why would any guy choose to be gay? Dudes are GRODIE, and chicks don't poop!
Statistically this is impossible since homosexuals make up less than 2% of the population.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Statistically this is impossible since homosexuals make up less than 2% of the population.
Thank you for once again demonstrating your lack of understanding of all things comedic.
Link to post
Share on other sites
There was a really interesting study released this year (I think), which was written about in a Sunday NYT Mag article about how all people inherently have excellent "gay-dar", i.e. people are able to correctly determine someone's sexual orientation with a minimal amount of interaction with a very high degree of accuracy--to the tune of an 80-90% rate. This is quite interesting, and convinced me further that some are definitely born gay, which to me, is really obvious if you've had any interaction throughout the course of your life with people who came out as adults who you knew when they were young.
I can also usually tell within a minute or two if someone grew up on the east coast or west coast, or somewhere in between. Experience changes us. One of the most interesting parts of this guy's transformation was that as he got more involve in straight life, he started to "seem" less and less gay. Kind of like how when someone starts working out their whole hormonal makeup can change and they start to carry themselves differently.
As Chris Rock said, "...Everybody in this room got at least a gay cousin. Every last one of you got a gay cousin. You knew he was gay when y'all was kids. You was playing ball, he was jumping rope. He didn't turn gay, he was gay then. He just didn't have nobody to be gay with."This is 100% accurate in my experience. Every person I've known from childhood who eventually came out was a complete non-surprise, and while anecdotal, it seems many share similar experience.The "choosing to be gay" argument, in my eyes stems wholly from either quasi or direct religious moralizing.Also, why would any guy choose to be gay? Dudes are GRODIE, and chicks don't poop!
Maybe you don't follow the religion forum to know that I'm an atheist, so my position is certainly not religious moralizing, and the twin studies I just presented make it really hard to make a case that people are always born gay. "Choosing to be gay" is not the alternative to being born gay, and we also have to think about how personality characteristics increase the likelihood that one has certain experiences. I made this post earlier in the thread:
This false dichotomy I think has kind of poisoned the discussion on this issue. ( I'm speaking in general here, not about you or this particular conversation). The options are not simply "they are born that way" vs. "they chose it". (The argument for born-that-way is often "who would choose that?"). There is a whole variety of room in between these extremes. Let me paint out a hypothetical example here for the kind of complex interaction between genes, social factors, and choice that could give rise to sexual orientation. I'm just making this up as a hypothetical to illustrate the general framework, so I'm by no means defending this as the way it happens. Totally fictional. Let's say Jim has a gene which codes for a protein that influences neurotransmission in a certain part of the brain, say the hypothalamus. Individuals with this gene might grow probabilistically fewer norepinephrine receptors in the hypothalamus, which say is involved in inhibiting physiological reactions to socially stressful events. Thus a person with hypo-activity in this brain region may be more likely to avoid socially charged situations because they don't like the strong physiological responses it gives their body. This in turn makes Jim more likely to find himself in socially submissive roles. Now, Jim's identical twin brother Randy has the same gene. However, one day Randy is walking home from school and sees his brother Jim being picked on by the neighborhood bullies. He gets angry and intervenes to save his brother. This experience sets off a chain reaction in Randy. First of all, the surge of testosterone leads to an up-regulation of the receptor he is low on in his hypothalamus, making him more likely to take dominant positions like this again in the future. Secondly, a cute girl standing nearby notices this display and becomes attracted to Randy, perhaps giggling at him or otherwise communicating her affection, which is noticed by Randy and associated with the surge in testosterone he felt and enjoyed. Jim on the other hand becomes more reclusive and spends most of his time reading books in the woods until one day he accidentally discovers the pleasure that can be had by masturbation. In a defining moment for his young physiology this never before experienced surge of hormones and neurotransmitters coursing through his body while he inhales the scent of bark and sap. This becomes a daily ritual for Jim while his brother is out playing baseball. Fast-forward to adolescence Jim finds that he is not as interested in girls as his brother is. He'd prefer to be in the woods. While Randy is starting go on dates with girls, Jim doesn't want to be bothered. At some point Jim finds a group of people on the internet who call themselves "dendrophiles". They describe themselves as lovers of nature and embrace their identity and believe it is a healthy alternative lifestyle. In fact none of them believe they "chose" to be dendrophiles, they just find themselves attracted to trees in the same way that other guys are attracted to girls. Why would anyone choose to be a dendrophile? Jim struggles with this for some time. This can't be right! He tries dating girls but isn't really satisfied. Eventually he comes to terms with his dendrophilic self and comes out to his parents and friends, who are initially shocked, but ultimately accept him for who he is. He moves to Portland to be part of the nation's largest dendrophilic community. Identical twins, one straight, one dendrophilic.Again, this is an intentional caricature just to illustrate how something like a gene can interact with choices, culture, environment, relationships, etc to influence something as complex as sexual identity. (Although there are dendrophiles and in most cases it can be traced back to early sexual experiences in the vicinity of trees.)
Link to post
Share on other sites
Maybe you don't follow the religion forum to know that I'm an atheist, so my position is certainly not religious moralizing, and the twin studies I just presented make it really hard to make a case that people are always born gay. "Choosing to be gay" is not the alternative to being born gay, and we also have to think about how personality characteristics increase the likelihood that one has certain experiences.
I think that it's a choice for some and for others they are born gay. I've always thought that if other animal species exhibited homosexual tendencies, then that would support that argument.Seems like it's almost what animal species doesn't exhibit homosexual tendencies.Homosexual behavior in animals
Link to post
Share on other sites
There was a new large scale twin study on sexual orientation published in Archives of Sexual Behavior this year: Långström et al. Genetic and environmental effects on same-sex sexual behavior: a population study of twins in Sweden. Archives of sexual behavior (2010) vol. 39 (1) pp. 75-80.This is the largest twin study ever conducted on the issue, and involved almost 4,000 pairs of twins in Sweden. They found that for men, genetic effects explained about 35% of the variance in sexual orientation, while individual-specific environment accounted for the other two-thirds of the variance. In women, only 20% of the variance was explained by genetic factors. I think its pretty clear now that the prevailing view of homosexuality as a characteristic fixed at birth is incorrect. From what I have read about the legal issues surrounding gay marriage, this kind of data is not irrelevant.
Do you have a link to this study?
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...