9th Circuit Overturns Prop 8 In California

[KAWDUP]

In regards to the science of it, I think that while there has been no
"gay" gene discovered, a high correlation has been observed in
identical twins, leading to the asssumption it has some genettic
aspect. Red, maybe you could look that up in your science book.

Now we're talkin'! Just that there is evidence of a genetic link might not change the politics (thanks to epigenetics, things encoded in your DNA can be switched on or off and can even be influenced by your behavior) but I still think that's interesting. If the causes were understood and could be manipulated, then it would be a choice. I wonder how society would react to that.

Believe it or not Red, this was what I was alluding to. I think it most certainly is part of the DNA, but the argument I was referring to was how behavior, both yours and your parents/guardians can affect how certain parts of your DNA can be "modified" - turned on or off to put it in your words.

Maybe Champ knew about this already, but thought using "other animals do it" was a stronger science based argument? Oh well. :*)

(modified to add smiley - the last comment was just meant as a humorous poke at Champ)

 

[Michchamp]

Well, the "other animals do it line" serves mainly to refute the claims that it is an unntural human choice only. obviously, that is not true.

 

[Thumb]

I don't believe it's a "choice", but it's really a moot point either way.

Since we have freedom of "choice" in this country anyways.

So many of the so called "Family Values" conservatives would be so much better off if they turned their family values focus inwards towards themselves rather than outwards and worrying about what everyone else is doing.

 

[Michchamp]

I don't believe it's a "choice", but it's really a moot point either way.

Since we have freedom of "choice" in this country anyways.

So many of the so called "Family Values" conservatives would be so much better off if they turned their family values focus inwards towards themselves rather than outwards and worrying about what everyone else is doing.

yes, that is the second part of the analysis. Regardless of whether it's a choice or not, prop 8 is unconstitutional.

 

[redandguilty]

I don't believe it's a "choice", but it's really a moot point either way.

Since we have freedom of "choice" in this country anyways.

So many of the so called "Family Values" conservatives would be so much better off if they turned their family values focus inwards towards themselves rather than outwards and worrying about what everyone else is doing.

Whether or not something is a choice can be a tricky conversation. People don't agree on the existence of free will. Even if we do agree on that that I think the issue is muddy. I don't feel like I chose to like cheeseburgers, but food tastes are influenced by both cultural and individual forces in addition to genetics. Lots of cultures (maybe all of them) include some generally loved food that other cultures think is disgusting. I've read that some Asian cultures think cheese is disgusting. Tastes can be acquired. If there's any parallel here (am I wrongheaded to suggest the idea?) then it might not be all about genetics even if genetic play a role. Nature vs. nurture is thought to be a misleading phrase by some because whenever people raise the question the answer seems to be that both nature and nurture are required to explain whatever phenomenon is being discussed.

 

[KAWDUP]

Regarding the actual topic at hand, do we actually have scientific evidence that preference is not a choice?

other species have been observed doing it.

OK this is the last time I will kick this fallen horse. This spurred my response, but I don't mind the backtrack.

Champ:<<Well, the "other animals do it line" serves mainly to refute the claims that it is an unntural human choice only. obviously, that is not true. >>

 

[KAWDUP]

I don't believe it's a "choice", but it's really a moot point either way.

Since we have freedom of "choice" in this country anyways.

So many of the so called "Family Values" conservatives would be so much better off if they turned their family values focus inwards towards themselves rather than outwards and worrying about what everyone else is doing.

Wow I could say the same thing about intrusions by elitists who believe they know what is best for me. They exist in both government and on this board. Amazing how that one can cut both ways, eh?

 

[redandguilty]

I don't believe it's a "choice", but it's really a moot point either way.

Since we have freedom of "choice" in this country anyways.

So many of the so called "Family Values" conservatives would be so much better off if they turned their family values focus inwards towards themselves rather than outwards and worrying about what everyone else is doing.

Wow I could say the same thing about intrusions by elitists who believe they know what is best for me. They exist in both government and on this board. Amazing how that one can cut both ways, eh?

When I read that, I was thinking the same thing is true for everybody. It sort of highlights our tendencies to say the other guy would be better off worrying about his own business.

 

[cheeno]

[quote="MI_Thumb":2kj7j0tg]I don't believe it's a "choice", but it's really a moot point either way.

Since we have freedom of "choice" in this country anyways.

So many of the so called "Family Values" conservatives would be so much better off if they turned their family values focus inwards towards themselves rather than outwards and worrying about what everyone else is doing.

Whether or not something is a choice can be a tricky conversation. People don't agree on the existence of free will. Even if we do agree on that that I think the issue is muddy. I don't feel like I chose to like cheeseburgers, but food tastes are influenced by both cultural and individual forces in addition to genetics. Lots of cultures (maybe all of them) include some generally loved food that other cultures think is disgusting. I've read that some Asian cultures think cheese is disgusting. Tastes can be acquired. If there's any parallel here (am I wrongheaded to suggest the idea?) then it might not be all about genetics even if genetic play a role. Nature vs. nurture is thought to be a misleading phrase by some because whenever people raise the question the answer seems to be that both nature and nurture are required to explain whatever phenomenon is being discussed.[/quote:2kj7j0tg]

So you're saying dick is an acquired taste.

 

[redandguilty]

Whether or not something is a choice can be a tricky conversation. People don't agree on the existence of free will. Even if we do agree on that that I think the issue is muddy. I don't feel like I chose to like cheeseburgers, but food tastes are influenced by both cultural and individual forces in addition to genetics. Lots of cultures (maybe all of them) include some generally loved food that other cultures think is disgusting. I've read that some Asian cultures think cheese is disgusting. Tastes can be acquired. If there's any parallel here (am I wrongheaded to suggest the idea?) then it might not be all about genetics even if genetic play a role. Nature vs. nurture is thought to be a misleading phrase by some because whenever people raise the question the answer seems to be that both nature and nurture are required to explain whatever phenomenon is being discussed.

So you're saying dick is an acquired taste.

Could be...for some maybe.

I need to add "in a matter of speaking". Geeze, I'm thinking so much in nature/nurture terms...I missed the literal joke here. Terrible.

 

[Michchamp]

other species have been observed doing it.

OK this is the last time I will kick this fallen horse. This spurred my response, but I don't mind the backtrack.

Champ:<<Well, the "other animals do it line" serves mainly to refute the claims that it is an unntural human choice only. obviously, that is not true. >>

well, I had made that point in the post he quoted, which you missed, so I was just repeating it there.

Look at it this way... without regard to the constitutional issues, just in regards to the arguments that this is a "sinful, unnatural act" and a "choice" that these people make, I'm saying this:

1. It can't be unnatural if it's been observed elsewhere in nature. if you want, a few google searches on your part would easily find references to this.

2. It can't be unnatural if there are some genetic underpinnings for it. Nor can it be a "choice" that a human - an animal, because that's what we are - can completely control.

3. And as far as it being a "choice"... who in their right mind would consciously choose the abuse some kids and adults have received for it throughout history? From being burned at the stake, ostracized from their families and their community, beaten, assaulted, ridiculed, etc. That's not a choice a rational human being makes simply for a whim.

 

[KAWDUP]

I saw all those - no need to repeat them. You are still arguing about whether it is a choice. I got ya. No choice. Good to go.

. . . and I never said anything about the morality of it. Quit putting words in my mouth.

My main points in this thread were 1) It is nature and nuture - the science is not completely conclusive where that split is yet, and 2) I could care less about the 9th circuit court, the final adjucation will be more about money than anything else.

You still thinking I believe it is a choice? Get over it - I don't.

 

[Michchamp]

I saw all those - no need to repeat them. You are still arguing about whether it is a choice. I got ya. No choice. Good to go.

. . . and I never said anything about the morality of it. Quit putting words in my mouth.

My main points in this thread were 1) It is nature and nuture - the science is not completely conclusive where that split is yet, and 2) I could care less about the 9th circuit court, the final adjucation will be more about money than anything else.

You still thinking I believe it is a choice? Get over it - I don't.

okay.

i agree with pt #1, and to some extent, pt #2.

not as much money as it is a political issue. I think anyone who is able to step outside the bounds of their religious morality, and look at this objectively would say "okay, any adult can marry any other adult, and receive equal protections of the law with regards to that marriage." yet, it continues to be fought over because, well, it's a useful distraction. people fight about this, and ignore gov't spending, foreign policy, taxes, etc. etc.

 

[KAWDUP]

I don't mind live and let live. No worries there, but if this hits the Supreme Court, and I don't think it is likely, you watch how much money gets spent fighting on whichever side looks like it will lose.

. . . and if doesn't hit the SC, the money will be spent in the states battling it out there. Just look how much has been spent in California and New York alone.

There are some very powerful groups on both sides of this issue, and I would be willing to bet it is about money for them.

 

[cheeno]

I don't mind live and let live. No worries there, but if this hits the Supreme Court, and I don't think it is likely, you watch how much money gets spent fighting on whichever side looks like it will lose.

. . . and if doesn't hit the SC, the money will be spent in the states battling it out there. Just look how much has been spent in California and New York alone.

There are some very powerful groups on both sides of this issue, and I would be willing to bet it is about money for them.

What would either side have to gain monetarily? This is a moral values/civil rights issue.

 

[KAWDUP]

I don't mind live and let live. No worries there, but if this hits the Supreme Court, and I don't think it is likely, you watch how much money gets spent fighting on whichever side looks like it will lose.

. . . and if doesn't hit the SC, the money will be spent in the states battling it out there. Just look how much has been spent in California and New York alone.

There are some very powerful groups on both sides of this issue, and I would be willing to bet it is about money for them.

What would either side have to gain monetarily? This is a moral values/civil rights issue.

Ah, that it is, but only for the purposes of discussion. Need to see my first post in this thread. Insurance companies stand to lose quite a bit if they now have to cover these spouses (It doesn't matter to them whether it is right or wrong, it will cost them more money - a lot of it.) Lawyers that handle divisions of property in a divorce or litigating all of the other social anomalies that occur when same sex marriage is considered, actually stand to gain quite a bit also.

There's two powerful groups for you, but there are others, and for some interesting reasons too.

 

[cheeno]

What would either side have to gain monetarily? This is a moral values/civil rights issue.

Ah, that it is, but only for the purposes of discussion. Need to see my first post in this thread. Insurance companies stand to lose quite a bit if they now have to cover these spouses (It doesn't matter to them whether it is right or wrong, it will cost them more money - a lot of it.) Lawyers that handle divisions of property in a divorce or litigating all of the other social anomalies that occur when same sex marriage is considered, actually stand to gain quite a bit also.

There's two powerful groups for you, but there are others, and for some interesting reasons too.

Yeah right. Gay Pride Parade: Brought to you by Krenshaw and Gershwin Divorce Law Firm.

 

[redandguilty]

Ah, that it is, but only for the purposes of discussion. Need to see my first post in this thread. Insurance companies stand to lose quite a bit if they now have to cover these spouses (It doesn't matter to them whether it is right or wrong, it will cost them more money - a lot of it.) Lawyers that handle divisions of property in a divorce or litigating all of the other social anomalies that occur when same sex marriage is considered, actually stand to gain quite a bit also.

There's two powerful groups for you, but there are others, and for some interesting reasons too.

Yeah right. Gay Pride Parade: Brought to you by Krenshaw and Gershwin Divorce Law Firm.

The insurance policy thing sounds pretty plausible to me.