California Supreme Court strikes down the state's ban on same-sex marriage as unconstitutional.

reply to post by weedwhacker


Thank you.

I disagree with you slightly. I can make a choice to live as a homosexual, a bi-sexual, or a heterosexual. Sure, in retrospect the person who starts as a homosexual then goes to bi-sexual, then heterosexual, then homosexual again could realistically be called a bi-sexual with a homosexual preference. We all have choices. Yes, I agree that being born with a certain sexual preference happens all the time, hell you even get super males (XXY), super females (XXX), and other variances that affect the sexual preference, not to mention physical attributes of that person.

However, I can choose to fall in love with a man or a woman, and if I only have a partner of my gender, the people who don't want that will brand me a homosexual, which is more along the lines of what I am speaking.

Somehow - I don't think falling in love and sexual attraction are necessarily the same thing.

I also believe you can "fall in love" with anyone - - but them pheromones can be a bit more selective.

Originally posted by Annee
Somehow - I don't think falling in love and sexual attraction are necessarily the same thing.

I also believe you can "fall in love" with anyone - - but them pheromones can be a bit more selective.

Sure, but you've got to admit, sexual attraction sure has a fair bit to do with falling in love, and should especially have something to do with your marriage relationship. Then again, why the world do we even bother with having laws about marriage in the first place? If I want to get married I don't want the State to have any say in that issue. Why should I be required to have some certificate that "validates" my marriage to another person in the first place? Sure, if my religion wants to validate it, that's one thing, but why should national policies be involved in my personal relations?

reply to post by GideonHM


I can only disagree with you, Gideon....because I know I would never be attracted to a woman....ever....so that puts me on the scale as completely homosexual, since I am male.

Sorry ladies! I'm not on the market!! Even if I do look like Tom Sellick!!

oops...I don't....would you settle for Robin Williams???

kidding....more like Michael Douglas.....but without all the money (I gave it all away to Robin....along with my back hair!!)

Good for My home state. I fully support anyones right to love and care for whomever they wish weather their relationship is hetrosexual or homosexual. Personally I find no sexual attraction to other persons of the same sex as myself. However I have several friends who are either gay or lesbian all are good kind people.
Speaking from personal experience, the majority of strongly anti gay/lesbian proponents I have known felt their own sexuality threatened or were deeply religious and intolerant of any and all who did not share their belief system.

People are people there are good and bad in every segment of society therefore stereotypes are invalid and judgments should be made on an individual basis not on what group one belongs to. Prejudice has no place in a rational beings judgment of others.

Originally posted by Annee
Somehow - I don't think falling in love and sexual attraction are necessarily the same thing.

I also believe you can "fall in love" with anyone - - but them pheromones can be a bit more selective.

news.nationalgeographic.com...

"Sexy" Smells Different for Gay, Straight Men, Study Says:

Stefan Lovgren
for National Geographic News
May 10, 2005

A new study shows that gay men respond differently from straight men when exposed to a suspected sexual stimulus found in male sweat.

When homosexual men smelled the odor of male sweat—more specifically, a chemical in the male hormone testosterone—their brains responded similarly to those of women.

The findings suggest that brain activity and sexual orientation are linked. It also supports an opinion held by most scientists, that people are born—not bred—gay.

"This is one more line of evidence that there's a biological substring for sexual orientation," said Dean Hamer, a geneticist at the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Maryland.

Hamer is the author of The Science of Desire: The Gay Gene and the Biology of Behavior. He was not involved in the research, which was conducted by scientists at Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm, Sweden.

The study was published today in the research journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

I recommend this and science daily.com

Originally posted by Isaac Tanner Madsen

Originally posted by Annee
Somehow - I don't think falling in love and sexual attraction are necessarily the same thing.

I also believe you can "fall in love" with anyone - - but them pheromones can be a bit more selective.

Sure, but you've got to admit, sexual attraction sure has a fair bit to do with falling in love, and should especially have something to do with your marriage relationship. Then again, why the world do we even bother with having laws about marriage in the first place? If I want to get married I don't want the State to have any say in that issue. Why should I be required to have some certificate that "validates" my marriage to another person in the first place? Sure, if my religion wants to validate it, that's one thing, but why should national policies be involved in my personal relations?

Actually - there is a difference between Lust and Love.

Love IMO - I'm on my second marriage - first one 14 years - second one 18 years - is more about common goals - respect - friendship - commitment etc.

Marriage is a legal contract for protection of person and property - nothing more.

reply to post by projectvxn


project....interesting study you found....but, I assure you, it will not apply to all humans, whether hetero or homo...

Yes, the pheromone (which I assume the study is....er....studying) can have an effect, it isn't that simple.

There is the visual...which usually overwhelms whatever 'pheromone based' instincts may have been built in by evolution....

Every straight man I've known has a certain 'ideal' woman in mind....and they are all very different. It's the hair, or the eye color, or the hips, or the breasts.....there is no ONE defining factor....except, the man is attracted to a woman....BUT not all women!!!!!

Same with women...they are less likely to focus on the physical attributes...oh, at first, of course....but women will overlook minor physical flaws when they see true heart....and truthfulness....in a man.

Gay men, I'm sorry to say, also focus, at first, on the physical....just like straight men! What a surprise!!!

But, as human nature, even some gay men have learned to look beyond, to look past the warts and the big nose and the big stomach.....just as a woman will look beyond the warts and the big nose and the big stomach....and love the person within. Because, you can be young and beautiful, have a gorgeous, the best body....but that will grow old, no matter what....and what's important is the person inside.

editting....re-read what your posted, 'project'....all that I already typed might be bollocks! But, some of it is pertinent, if not directly in respnse to YOUR post! Cheers!



[edit on 5/17/0808 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by weedwhacker


What, you yourself said that a marriage 'should be between a man and a woman'. Isn't the father a 'man' and his daughter a 'woman'? [edit to add] Of course incest is reprehensible...

[edit on 5/15/0808 by weedwhacker]

Sorry - I have to take issue with you.

Why is incest reprehensible? Are you talking social taboo - - or scientific?

reply to post by Annee


Not to deviate from thread topic, but I'll add my thoughts.

I wouldn't find incest wrong in a moral sense... again as long as it is truly consensual between adults. Except for the fact that it has been shown scientifically that incest has a high probability of causing health problems. Or is that not so? I don't know, I am not too well read on this..

I don't know if it is social programming, or my genetics, but I have never felt an attraction for a family member. So I can't relate to this idea. BUT... if it doesn't in fact cause health problems, then I would see no issue as long as it is between consensual adults.

I don't know if it is social programming, or my genetics, but I have never felt an attraction for a family member. So I can't relate to this idea. BUT... if it doesn't in fact cause health problems, then I would see no issue as long as it is between consensual adults.

Also trying not to stray from subject. But - research has found that often adopted people who unknowingly are related will often feel a connection.

reply to post by Annee


When I said "attraction" I meant sexual attraction specifically.

With the adoption thing... do you mean a feeling that compels them to bond... or did you mean sexual attraction?

More then off topic it seems. Maybe we can relate this to thread topic eventually hehe

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by Annee

 

When I said "attraction" I meant sexual attraction specifically.

With the adoption thing... do you mean a feeling that compels them to bond... or did you mean sexual attraction?

More then off topic it seems. Maybe we can relate this to thread topic eventually hehe

Yes. An attraction that could lead to sexual.

When you are attracted to someone - you don't always know why.

reply to post by Annee


So are you suggesting incest is natural, or are you suggesting incest is natural and likely common?

If it is natural, then wouldn't that be in a destructive juxtaposition in light of the evidence on the genetic problems associated with it?

p.s we can relate this to the thread, i know we can!

reply to post by Anonymous ATS

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
You cannot marry your daughter (providing she is under age) because she is not an adult. Also, is there any proof that you cannot, in fact, marry your daughter? Can someone find a precedence for that claim? I'm sure/almost certain it has happened.

There are laws which deal with consanguinity ("con- (with) sanguine (blood) -ity") and marriage. Also, there are culturally-defined degrees of consanguinity in which sexual relationships are defined as incestuous.

There are reasons for these taboos. Flipper babies, for one.

Has it happened? Who knows. Probably it has. That doesn't make it right, though.

reply to post by GideonHM


I honestly think that part of my issue with the mostly backward logic is the refusal to admit fear. I've noticed so many convinced of some sort of "gay agenda" just as with the civil right moments all the white women were going to be corrupted by the "big scary guys". Although I was not nearly even born yet when the civil rights movement happened I can still see the correlations.

It quite frankly scares the heck out of me when I can witness hate, disguised and dressed up pretty in whatever kind of "religion right" they think makes it look best. But, strip away all those layers and deep down it's still the same hate.

I'm sorry but I personally find this phrase rather offensive: "I have nothing against _____ but they are going to burn in hell." Seriously here? You do not see what a lousy thing to say that is? Thanks but no.

Although my last post was a bit on the snark side, it is for the reasons above. Truly, does anyone who prescribes themselves to out dated logic, (ie. the man upstairs is going to condemn!! - type thing) how do you truly justify this? Judge not right?

Many in my family do indeed prescribe to the same illogical logic that you've mentioned with you father. My Aunts namely are just vicious biddies. Long history of me and them at odds, due to many factors.

When people get to the point where they will deny proven scientific principals just to make themselves right, arguments tend to go downhill fast. (Animals are not read not inherently preferential toward one gender or another, yes including the top- people. True albeit a m/m or a w/w cannot produce offspring, that is still a moot point in the larger scheme. For it in and of itself would require the entire (or at least 80-90%) to only choose the same gender time after time. (No chance in heck of that happening ever.)

Either way, I have never had anyone come to me and tell me a non-biased logic based reason as to why it's "wrong" for people of the same gender to love each other. The only thing I've ever gotten what some random religious reasoning based off of a book from 2000+ years ago.

I've read about adopted (be it one or both) people finding siblings, getting married only to find out they're related.

I've heard so many times of there just being a connection. No, I have no idea if there have been any studies on any of this but I'm going to take a shot in the dark here. I think that with genetics there is a mental connect that is there. Just as a parent has a deep bond with their child, I think the same may be able to be applied to siblings.

Sometimes it seems that the cells just... know...

Although I do have to add, that I've always thought that there was so much more to the genetics game that thought. I've always been "odd" in comparison to my family. I've always been artistic and philosophical, family- not so much. Come to find out, I'm just like my bio-mom. A few years ago, I took a look at my record, low and behold- it explained me. I'm just like my bio-mom and bio-dad. At least on paper.

Thankfully the family "gets" my philosophical and artistic side, seeing my bedroom has always come to a shock, murals on all the walls.. heh

Sorry to sidetrack, just that hit upon something of interest to me...

Over and over again, in this thread, I have seen the assertion that homosexuality is something that is genetically predetermined.

Can anyone post a link that definitely shows this? To my knowledge, this has never been proven. It is my understanding that the cause for homosexuality is still unknown. I am not following the science here that closely, so I might be wrong.

#

If homosexuality is PURELY genetic, the conversation is over -- we cannot discriminate against what people ARE. That is clearly wrong. However, if there is any component of homosexuality that is free choice, it is fair game to be discriminated against.

So I think this is a critical aspect to the discussion.

What causes homosexuality?

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by Annee

 

So are you suggesting incest is natural, or are you suggesting incest is natural and likely common?

If it is natural, then wouldn't that be in a destructive juxtaposition in light of the evidence on the genetic problems associated with it?

p.s we can relate this to the thread, i know we can!

Attraction is natural.

Incest is a social taboo.

I know there have been cases of brother/sister & mother/son - - who later discovered they were related

Originally posted by Buck Division

Over and over again, in this thread, I have seen the assertion that homosexuality is something that is genetically predetermined.

UC Davis scientists’ groundbreaking research: mate-attracting chemicals. news.ucanr.org...

This is just one study - there are others.

Although science is not saying "we've pinpointed the exact . . ." - - - - they now believe there is no clear Black & White in gender or sexual attraction.