Federal Judge Strikes Down Prop 8: California Gay Marriage Ban

[ZQrn]

This is not about whether a claim is "true". The Guidelines for PF require that anyone making scientific claims be able to support them with references to standard textbooks or peer-reviewed journal papers. You agreed to these guidelines, so you need to follow them.

That wasn't my point, I was asked to provide reputable sources that say that homosexuality has a nature and nurture component, I provide a site which simply listed those reputable sources. I could have all given them individually but that would be an ocean of links.

You can trace if they actually said those things easily by googling the verbatim quotes, I did, , I said before that I did, and they said it.

I wasn't asked to provide a peer reviewed journal, I was asked to give some big names that say that homosexuality has a nature and a nurture component, the APA is a pretty damned big name and you can trace the quote.

 

[Evo]

I wasn't asked to provide a peer reviewed journal, I was asked to give some big names that say that homosexuality has a nature and a nurture component, the APA is a pretty damned big name and you can trace the quote.

I've already told you, some out of context quote without even a linked source posted, is not acceptable.

 

[ZQrn]

I've already told you, some out of context quote without even a linked source posted, is not acceptable.

So you're now going to give every person an infarction that gave an out of context quote with a linked source?

Because I saw dozens come by.

Even so, this quote:

"There are numerous theories about the origins of a person's sexual orientation. Most scientists today agree that sexual orientation is most likely the result of a complex interaction of environmental, cognitive and biological factors. In most people, sexual orientation is shaped at an early age. There is also considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person's sexuality."

Is pretty clear in whatever context is lay. And it can hardly be called being 'misinformed' or 'spreading misinformation' to give this quote. Which context may be found http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/sexual-orientation.aspx

You have got to be kidding me if you think giving this quote 'out of context' is spreading any misinformation, looking at the context this is quite simply the view of the APA, and the context can easily be traced and I urged people to trace it if they didn't believe it.

I was asked to give a big name that didn't agree with that there was 'no proof' that there were environmental factors. I gave three such big names all together in one link. If I gave only this top one, the quote, and the link (the page links to the quotes itself and its sources), would I then still be in error?

 

[Evo]

I was asked to give a big name that didn't agree with that there was 'no proof' that there were environmental factors. I gave three such big names all together in one link. If I gave only this top one, the quote, and the link (the page links to the quotes itself and its sources), would I then still be in error?

I keep telling you that this is one of your mahor problems in posting. You do not take time to read and comprehend what has been posted before you respond. No, you were not told by my monique to give a "big name".

You've been claiming that homosexulatity is a choice. Monique posted a peer reviewed study showing that it is believed to be genetic.

Your own big name FAQ, which is not a scientific study, says you're wrong

No, human beings cannot choose to be either gay or straight.

I suggest, again, that you slow down, thoroughly read a post until you clearly understand what's been said, do some research, and post valid peer reviewed studies to back yourself up if you are maiking a statement regarding science.

 

[ZQrn]

I keep telling you that this is one of your mahor problems in posting. You do not take time to read and comprehend what has been posted before you respond. No, you were not told by my monique to give a "big name".

Monique said:

? Who is R.D. Johnson and why does he cite some random websites of which most links are broken? Is Geocities a respectable source? I cite a peer-reviewed article. You really need to come up with something more respectable.

To my claim that:

and indeed, a lot of 'respected scientists' disagree.

I take it that a position of a body of respected scientists, the single authority on psychiatry in the US counts as well as a 'respected scientist'

You've been claiming that homosexulatity is a choice.

Nope, I claimed I was sceptical that homosexuality was purely nature, I at no point, called it a choice, in fact I said:

No, I didn't say that at all.

To:

So then you are really saying that being gay is a choice. Gay men could be reconditioned to be straight.

At the top of a post where you replied to the bottom part.

I at no point said that I held homosexuality to be a choice, in fact I explicitly said that I never intended that interpretation when I said that homosexuality might have a nurture component.

How does something having a nurture component implies it to be a choice? I take it we all agree that musical taste has a nurture component, yet do we choice what music we like?

I really don't think you're in the position to judge reading skills...

Monique posted a peer reviewed study showing that it is believed to be genetic.

She posted a peer reviewed study where one author without any citations or links said that there was 'no proof' it had environmental factors, I countered with both the APA, the APA and the AAP saying that in all likelyhood it does have environmental factors.

Pardon me, but I think the site of the APA is a lot more authoritative than just one peer reviewed study when it comes to determining whether or not there is proof of homosexuality having environmental factors or not.

Your own big name FAQ, which is not a scientific study, says you're wrong

I don't follow.

I suggest, again, that you slow down, thoroughly read a post until you clearly understand what's been said, do some research, and post valid peer reviewed studies to back yourself up if you are maiking a statement regarding science.

I wasn't making a claim regarding science, I was making the claim that a lot of scientists are not convinced that there is no environmental factor. I believe that if the position of the APA, the APA and the AAP is this very position, that is more than enough to back up the claim that there exist a substantial amount of specialists who do not believe there are no environmental factors.

Also, I am really not convinced of your own ability to read, you seem to put a lot of things I never said into my mouth, such that I support same sex marriage, though I do, I have never said I did in this thread.

 

[Evo]

I at no point said that I held homosexuality to be a choice,

You have been given so many opportunities to improve. To stop the misinformation, to stop denying the things you've said. You've made no effort to improve. It's not fair to others that do make an effort.

'Biological', those are such strong words. At the moment there is little reason to assume that homosexuality or heterosexuality is anything more than 'taste', some men have a preference for blonds, some for brunettes, and some for other men. The nonexistence of this so-called 'gay gene' that people have been trying to find together with the documented existence of societies where it was extremely common seem to imply that like any other form of taste, it is subject to fashion, can be acquired, and has a nurture and nature component to it.

Homosexuality to me is as simple as being attracted to per exemple very small women, it's not extremely common, but that's all there is to it.

 

[talk2glenn]

You're both yelling at each other, but for no real reason.

According to the American Psychological and Psychiatric Associations:

"Currently, there is no scientific consensus about the specific factors that cause an individual to become heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual — including possible biological, psychological, or social effects of the parents’ sexual orientation."

There is no consensus. Any argument on this subject needs to be framed from that point of objective reference.

If ZQrn has substantive reasons he speculates homosexual propensity is at least somewhat environmental, rather than purely biological, then that is a reasonable and informed opinion, given current evidence.

He shouldn't have to cite specific studies, given the general position of the leading authorities as stated above. A specific study would be needed if it were a controversial opinion. Monique's apparent position that homosexualuality is purely genetic is controversial, and therefore should be cited and is subject to debate.

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/...er_Psychological_Assn_Amicus_Curiae_Brief.pdf

 

[vela]

Monique's apparent position that homosexualuality is purely genetic is controversial, and therefore should be cited and is subject to debate.

Actually, she never said it was genetic. She just pointed out that ZQrn's reasoning about twins doesn't rule out the possibility of a genetic component, and she also noted in a subsequent post that factors affecting brain development in the womb might also explain homosexuality.

 

[Monique]

Indeed, as vela points out I never advocated that it was definitely genetic. There was an error in the reasoning by ZQrn that it could not be genetic based on discordant twins, which I corrected.

As for the social environment, there was a time when psychologists believed that you could reassign the sex of a person when you did it early enough during development. David Reimer is an example of how that miserably failed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer and http://archpedi.ama-assn.org/cgi/reprint/151/3/298 (Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 1997)

I never ruled out any environmental effects, if you read my quote correctly it says that there is no evidence for the social environment having an effect on gender identity or sexual orientation.

 

[DreadVile]

Just want to point a few small things out.

"All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable; that the minority possesses their equal rights, which equal laws must protect, and to violate which would be oppression." - Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address

Read that twice if need be. The founding fathers saw this problem and we are still not able to come to grips with it.

This issue is a rehash of the fight to legalize interracial marriage. It was also voted down by the people. Some states like today repealed the laws others did not. States set laws to dissuade couples from doing it. Religious people quoted the Bible and others sources to fight it. One couple was ordered to leave the state and when appealed was denied on this statement.

"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix." - Virginia trial court Judge Leon Bazile

Marriage provides legal benefits. It is a binding contract authorized by the government. We could get into Jim Crow laws, but I hope most people see the point. Civil union is the same road different trappings. Separate but equal does not work and will fall in the long run.

Its sad watching the world fight the same battles. As a race we are very slow to learn and slower to change.

 

[mheslep]

... Its sad watching the world fight the same battles. As a race we are very slow to learn and slower to change.

Saying that interracial marriage and gay marriage are the fundamentally the same issue does not make it so.

 

[turbo]

Saying that interracial marriage and gay marriage are the fundamentally the same issue does not make it so.

Social taboos, be they race-based, gender-based, etc, can be hard to overcome. Are they fundamentally the same issue? Maybe not, but the parallels are compelling.

 

[loseyourname]

What difference does it make whether or not people choose to be gay? If I chose to dye my skin black, would it then be okay to force me to drink from a separate drinking fountain?

 

[CRGreathouse]

What difference does it make whether or not people choose to be gay? If I chose to dye my skin black, would it then be okay to force me to drink from a separate drinking fountain?

Is the paint still wet? If so, I could see the argument.

 

[leroyjenkens]

What difference does it make whether or not people choose to be gay? If I chose to dye my skin black, would it then be okay to force me to drink from a separate drinking fountain?

Can you choose to be gay? Wouldn't that be like choosing to not be gay? Does everyone have to choose a sexuality and until that decision is finalized, they're asexual?

 

[Jack21222]

Saying that interracial marriage and gay marriage are the fundamentally the same issue does not make it so.

In what ways are they substantially different? It's trivial to list the ways in which they are the same, but I can't think of any substantial ways they are different.

 

[Char. Limit]

In what ways are they substantially different? It's trivial to list the ways in which they are the same, but I can't think of any substantial ways they are different.

One deals with race, the most sensitive issue in America, and the other deals with sexual orientation, the third most sensitive issue in America.

Do I win?

 

[Al68]

Saying that interracial marriage and gay marriage are the fundamentally the same issue does not make it so.

In what ways are they substantially different? It's trivial to list the ways in which they are the same, but I can't think of any substantial ways they are different.

Seriously? You don't think the difference between "lighter skin" and "has a penis" is substantial?

I have no problem with gay people, and I think most of them would agree that comparing sexual orientation to something as superficial and trivial as skin color is absurd.

 

[DreadVile]

Seriously? You don't think the difference between "lighter skin" and "has a penis" is substantial?

I have no problem with gay people, and I think most of them would agree that comparing sexual orientation to something as superficial and trivial as skin color is absurd.

Yes and people have died fighting for and against even smaller differences. You have to remember this is the human race and everything can be singled out. So yes they are the same, sexual orientation and skin color, it's all just a tag people are using to single others out for differential treatment.

 

[vertices]

Saying that interracial marriage and gay marriage are the fundamentally the same issue does not make it so.

They are insofar as they both have to do with civil rights...

 

[Jack21222]

Seriously? You don't think the difference between "lighter skin" and "has a penis" is substantial?

I have no problem with gay people, and I think most of them would agree that comparing sexual orientation to something as superficial and trivial as skin color is absurd.

No, I don't. Now you explain to me why it is substantial. Argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy. Biological sex has no bearing on a person's civil rights. "Everybody has the right to marry somebody of the opposite sex" is the exact same argument as "Everybody has the right to marry somebody of the same race."

Now, you explain to me why you think those are two completely different arguments.

 

[DanP]

No, I don't. Now you explain to me why it is substantial. Argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy. Biological sex has no bearing on a person's civil rights. "Everybody has the right to marry somebody of the opposite sex" is the exact same argument as "Everybody has the right to marry somebody of the same race."

Now, you explain to me why you think those are two completely different arguments.

You see, you criticize him for the same error you made when I said I see no difference between a gay man, a straight man and a man wishing to marry an object (from PoV of rights), and that both gay and the later are equally alien to me.

If I recall correctly you called the later (my paraphrase) "good only to be locked in an asylum".
So yeah, you should rethink your critique. Your "liberal" views seem only to apply to your in- group while you would hastily confine others in psychiatric wards.

 

[loseyourname]

You see, you criticize him for the same error you made when I said I see no difference between a gay man, a straight man and a man wishing to marry an object (from PoV of rights), and that both gay and the later are equally alien to me.

Marriage is a contract between individuals capable of consent granting non-biologically related humans the same legal rights as biological family members.

What could it possibly mean for the state to sanction marriage between a man and an object? An object cannot enter into a legal contract nor can it be granted legal rights.

 

[DanP]

Marriage is a contract between individuals capable of consent granting non-biologically related humans the same legal rights as biological family members.

What could it possibly mean for the state to sanction marriage between a man and an object? An object cannot enter into a legal contract nor can it be granted legal rights.

legal definitions of marriage can and will be changed. It's happening before our eyes. We don't have to cling to traditional definitions, don't we ?

But anyway, the point is, the poster to who I responded is fast to defend his in-group, while ready to lock others in asylums. This was my point. And then he is bedazzled when other humans don't see his point and think gay should not be allowed to marry each other.

 

[mheslep]

Marriage is a contract between individuals capable of consent granting non-biologically related humans the same legal rights as biological family members.

Is that your interpretation or drawn from a source?

Webster's:

1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> b : the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage

I think Webster's attempt is ad-hoc and flawed, but nonetheless per Webster if a sibling marriage becomes recognized by law, anywhere, that's a marriage.

 

[vela]

legal definitions of marriage can and will be changed. It's happening before our eyes. We don't have to cling to traditional definitions, don't we?

The reason people object to this argument is because it isn't just redefining marriage; it's rewriting the basic principles upon which the law is based. You can't enter any contract, much less marriage, with an object because there can not be any consent given by the object.

It's kind of like arguing you can prove any identity by multiplying both sides of the equation by zero. After all, the rules of mathematics are things humans came up with. We don't need to be bound by the traditional rules, right?

 

[Hurkyl]

The reason people object to this argument is because it isn't just redefining marriage; it's rewriting the basic principles upon which the law is based. You can't enter any contract, much less marriage, with an object because there can not be any consent given by the object.

Can I enter a contract with you that says we are a trio of Martian superheroes who have come to Earth to fight crime?

I don't know if it's legally possible. But the very idea is quite silly, because we are neither Martian, nor superheroes, and there are only two of us. But if we lobby to change the meanings of those three words...



While the whole "rights of an inanimate object" discussion is an interesting one that demonstrates that our beliefs over who deserves rights isn't as obvious as some might think -- after all, commoners are merely semi-intelligent beasts of burden and don't deserve the same rights that we nobles do -- but I think it is off topic and should probably move to another thread.

 

[loseyourname]

legal definitions of marriage can and will be changed. It's happening before our eyes. We don't have to cling to traditional definitions, don't we ?

My point is that there is no way to construct a coherent definition of marriage that encompasses what is now recognized as marriage as well as a man entering into a permanent state-sanctioned union with an inanimate object.

Think of it another way. What would it mean for a state to sanction a marriage between a man and a blow-up sex doll? Let's name her Suzie. Suzie could not sign the marriage license. Suzie could not swear a wedding vow. Suzie could not be granted hospital visitation rights or power of attorney. Suzie could not inherit property. Unions between a man and an inanimate object lie outside of the set of all unions that a state could consider sanctioning as marriage. It's the same reason you cannot currently marry a corpse even if she is a female of majority age. The reason is as much logistical as it is moral.

But anyway, the point is, the poster to who I responded is fast to defend his in-group, while ready to lock others in asylums. This was my point. And then he is bedazzled when other humans don't see his point and think gay should not be allowed to marry each other.

Well, like I said, the set of all possible unions a state can consider sanctioning as marriage has to be closed somewhere. A banana cannot marry a carton of milk. The conceptual limit has to be placed at two (or perhaps more than two) individuals capable of entering into a contract and being granted legal rights. That's the absolute limit of how far it can go, the dead bottom of the slippery slope.

The discussion has to begin there. From that limiting set of all unions we might consider, we must, for rational cause, exclude some of them and include some of them. An appeal to unions lying outside of this limiting set is not meaningful.

 

[Jack21222]

You see, you criticize him for the same error you made when I said I see no difference between a gay man, a straight man and a man wishing to marry an object (from PoV of rights), and that both gay and the later are equally alien to me.

If I recall correctly you called the later (my paraphrase) "good only to be locked in an asylum".
So yeah, you should rethink your critique. Your "liberal" views seem only to apply to your in- group while you would hastily confine others in psychiatric wards.

First of all, I said nothing of psychiatric wards. Please don't attribute things to me which I did not say. Secondly, I've already pointed out how human beings are manifestly different than objects. Objects cannot agree to ANY contract, neither can animals. Stop using the same tired old straw man.

 

[DanP]

The reason people object to this argument is because it isn't just redefining marriage; it's rewriting the basic principles upon which the law is based. You can't enter any contract, much less marriage, with an object because there can not be any consent given by the object.

It pretty much happens today when we allow man to marry man. We redefine the basic principles of marriage. (you know, man <-> women ... kids).

 

[DanP]

First of all, I said nothing of psychiatric wards. Please don't attribute things to me which I did not say. Secondly, I've already pointed out how human beings are manifestly different than objects. Objects cannot agree to ANY contract, neither can animals. Stop using the same tired old straw man.

So what ? Law recognizes unilateral contracts. Maybe Miss X will be allowed in future to marry her sex toy robot with a unilateral contract as long as the robot is her property. A contract is only required today for marriage. Who knows what tomorrow will bring. You cling to current definitions and principles, hoping they won't offend your sensibilities.

This is the same thing anti gay marriage ppl do as well. They cling to definitions indicating that marriage is a union between man and women, to "morals" and so on. Most of us believed that marriage is between a women and a man. We are willing to change our beleives today for the sake of the happiness of gay ppl. We do change the basic customs on which the legal concept of marriage stood in the western world for you. We throw away thousand of years of traditions to make you happy. We change the laws for you.

So we expect the generic gay to be more open minded regarding other minorities, and help them change the laws to achieve their happiness.

 

[DanP]

My point is that there is no way to construct a coherent definition of marriage that encompasses what is now recognized as marriage as well as a man entering into a permanent state-sanctioned union with an inanimate object.

...

The reason is as much logistical as it is moral.

Unilateral contracts, and the requirement that the thing (dog, robot, whatever) is in your property would be enough. Its really not so hard. Clinging to the "consent" here in the case of an object is the bad thing to do. It;s like clinging on the fact that marriage is a union between a man and a women.

Morales change as well. Slowly but they do. I think USA had laws to criminally incriminate homosexuality in past. If you recognize homosexuality as a moral variance , why would you for example think Zoophilia is any different ?

 

[vertices]

So what ? Law recognizes unilateral contracts. Maybe Miss X will be allowed in future to marry her sex toy robot with a unilateral contract as long as the robot is her property. A contract is only required today for marriage. Who knows what tomorrow will bring. You cling to current definitions and principles, hoping they won't offend your sensibilities.

You may wish to look up the definition of a contract...

This is the same thing anti gay marriage ppl do as well. They cling to definitions indicating that marriage is a union between man and women, to "morals" and so on.

Most of us believed that marriage is between a women and a man.

We are willing to change our beleives today for the sake of the happiness of gay ppl.

Do you think gay people have the same rights as the rest of us? (I'm somehow doubtful you can rise to this level) If you miraculously do, you will realize this has nothing to do with what people believe or believed; it's about discrimination, which we all believe is wrong.

We do change the basic customs on which the legal concept of marriage stood in the western world for you.

If they discriminated against 10% of the population, this was absolutely the right thing to do.

We throw away thousand of years of traditions to make you happy. We change the laws for you.

Slavery was also a tradition, was this institution scrapped to make black people 'happy'?

BTW I was half expecting you to say "I've done everything to make you happy what about what makes me happy "

Seriously though, you're making out that you've personally sacrificed so much to give gays special favours, when you've (or the law) have done nothing of the sort...

 

[DanP]

You may wish to look up the definition of a contract...

Ok, the term was not lost in translation, but the institution is surely known in American law as well. Testaments. Declaration of acceptance or rejection of a succession are the classic example of unilateral juridical acts. Yes, they are technically not a unilateral contract you are right.

 

[DanP]

Do you think gay people have the same rights as the rest of us? (I'm somehow doubtful you can rise to this level) If you miraculously do, you will realize this has nothing to do with what people believe or believed; it's about discrimination, which we all believe is wrong.

Do you believe that persons engaging in the zoophilia have the same rights as the rest of us ? If not, maybe miraculously you will raise at the level one day :P